The definition of the word religion depends on how one wants to use the term. It use to be that religion was strictly defined as a set of beliefs about and veneration of a superior supernatural being. At least that is how the founders of our nation used the term.
But now, I've seen some fellow religiously conservative Christians use the term as describing one's ultimate concern or loyalty. This brings beliefs about what is natural into the same discussion with that which is supernatural. The reason for doing so seems to be that by putting beliefs about what is natural in the same boat as beliefs about a superior supernatural being, then beliefs in either beliefs in what is natural could face the same restrictions as beliefs in what is supernatural or beliefs in what is supernatural could enjoy the same freedoms as beliefs in what is natural.
My use of the term religion here will involve neither definition. Rather, I will be using the term 'religion' as describing beliefs that a given theory or ideology is omniscient. I using the word 'religion' that way because some religions, like Christianity, believe that God is omniscient.
We have a great and growing divide in our nation, and part of that divide can be attributed to us treating our favorite political and/or economic theory or ideology as a religion as I have just described. The signs of do so are pretty straight forward. We have made a religion out of our favorite political and/or economic theory when we have implied that it is an all-time, one-size fits all solution for how a nation should work politically and/or economically.
Take the concept of limited government for example. Some of my fellow religiously conservative Christians believe that limiting the size and reach of government must not just always be pursued, but it is Biblical as well. The last attribute justifies the first for some while others who believe that we must always only limit the size and reach of government for more secular reasons.
But if we take the preamble of The Constitution seriously, it is difficult to always only look to limit the size of government. That preamble says:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America
What happens when a large segment of the private sector threatens the general welfare of Americans in order to persue maximizing their own financial profits? Will a limited government be able to protect us from that segment of the private sector regardless of how large and more powerful it grows? Realize that as today's technology makes the individual grow more capable, it also makes that individual grow more vulnerable because other individuals are more capable. Shouldn't government protect the vulnerable especially when the number of vulnerable people increases.
Or what happens when nature, such as a pandemic or climate change, threatens to do significant harm to our present or future well-being? Will limited government always protect us from such harm? Or do we need more government so that it can act in ways that protect us now and/or in the future?
Or let's look at a couple of specific ideologies. Take Neoliberal Capitalism for example. We should note here that Neoliberal Capitalism was not the kind of capitalism that was followed in the U.S. before the 1980s. Neoliberal Capitalism calls for cutting as much government intervention in and supervision over a nation's economy that does not pertain to protecting free markets. Is such a form of a one-size-fits-all government the solution to any nation's economy regardless of the situation a nation is facing? For example as wealth and income disparities continually grow between the economic classes and races, is Neoliberal Capitalism capable of adequately controlling these growing disparities?
Or take the kind of government supervision of the economy that was practiced in the Soviet Union. Did such an approach solve all of the economic problems of the people of the Soviet Union? Did switching to a Neoliberal form of Capitalism solve all of the economic problems experienced in the Soviet Union?
A more basic question to be asked here is can any system that a person or group of people create really be omniscient? Is anyone that intelligent enough to design a political or economic approach that solves or prevents all that would threaten the general welfare of any nation?
Those who make a religion out of their favorite political/economic theory or ideology pursue a purist approach to politics and/or economics. To illustrate what I mean, we can play with the following quote from Martin Luther King Jr. when he spoke against the Vietnam War:
The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just.
If we put in a fill-in-the-blank for the word 'Western,' we can substitute any theory or ideology that is now treated as a religion. On the other hand, the sign that a given theory or ideology is not a religion is when people combine their favorite theory or ideology with other theories and ideologies to form hybrid solutions. Here we can think of what Martin Luther King Jr. wrote in favor of when he said that we should combine the best of Capitalism with the best of Soviet Union Communism. Why did he think that we need to combine the two? It was because of the weaknesses he observed in those two ideologies. He said that while Capitalism forgets that life is social, Soviet Union Communism forgets that life is individual. And so we must combine the best from those two systems.
When we believe that because of what we know from our own pet theory or ideology, that we have nothing to learn from others, we have elevated that theory or ideology to that of a religion. And the failure to recognize that is what is driving our nation apart. After all, does the kind of arrogance that believes that one's own group has everything to teach and nothing to learn from others teach us to tolerate or work with others or does it teach us to either rule over or discard those who disagree?
Many of my fellow religiously conservative Christians are prone to elevating their pet political and/or economic views into a religion because of our regard for principles. That is because we treat Biblical principles as applying for all time and all situations, we sometimes get confused and begin to believe that that is how we should treat principles we learn from people as well. And thus principles founded by mere people which have specific situations in which they should be applied are then applied in all situations and at all times.
Do we want to see an end to the current and growing division that exists in our nation? Then we should seek to find points of agreement with those whose beliefs and theories are different from our own. And we should do that by checking our arrogance at the door. We should stop trying to use our pet theories and ideologies as an indicator of our superiority over those who disagree. In fact, we should try to stop thinking that being superior to others is important. It is only then that we can have both a variety of theories and ideologies from which to draw our solutions from without causing further division in our nation.
No comments:
Post a Comment