Got a problem? Blame secular humanism!
With the whole European Constitution thing going on, there has been the occasional irksome discussion about the role of religion in Europe -- irksome not because such discussion shouldn't occur, but because of the assumptions that seem to be taken without question by most of the commentators. The most loathsome is one a lot of you have probably heard, and it goes something like this: "the excesses of secular philosophy led to the most destructive ideologies of all time: fascism and communism" -- as if to vindicate religion. And, like almost everything I find loathsome, this assumption is wrong on so many levels.
First of all, fascism was not secular. Fascism comes from fascis, the name of one of the symbols of the Roman Empire, the bundle of wheat, which Mussolini adopted as part of his attempt to portray himself as Caesar over a new Roman Empire. On the one hand it is simply a symbol of that empire, but remember also why it was a symbol: the wheat is bound together, identical in form and length. Try to bend on blade, and it breaks; try to bend the bundle, and it doesn't budge. If the bundle were formed of different kinds of grain, of different densities and lengths, it would be possible to weaken the whole structure by breaking the different ones. Thus, the fascis is a symbol of strength through unity and conformity -- and, by extension, the destruction of that within the bundle that does not conform. Logically, with unity and conformity, there is no need for debate, so a single ruler can know what is best for all -- and the fools among us will assume that he will do what is best for all. Finally, part of the conformity of Italian fascism was Catholicism: what's an Italian if he's not Catholic?
Nazism also was not secular: among the banners on display in marches and rallies were those that read "Gott mit uns!", which is German for "God with us" (not unlike isra-el, "God among us" -- neat, huh? Germany and Israel are also the only two countries I know of with the "right of return"), and Mein Kampf is full of references to God's will for justification of racial assertions, just as the doctrines of neo-Nazi and Aryan groups today. Aryan superiority is rooted in God's blessings, and Jewish acursedness is rooted in their rejection of God.
And communism, if lacking a deity, was still a religion. It had an unquestionable dogma: dialectic materialism; unimpeachable prophets: Marx, Lenin, Stalin; it had an inevitable, if distant, heaven: the utopia of the worker's paradise, wherein men would be freed of possession or greed, of exploitation or brutality. And the real kicker is, of course, that which is central to religion: it could not be questioned.
Secondly, there is no question that the most destructive ideology in history is Christianity: it undergirded the draconian force of Constantine's reign, the brutality of the conquests of the Americas and African and Asian colonies, the expulsion of the Jews from every Western European country and persecution and pogroms elsewhere in Europe, the peasants' wars, the Thirty-Years War, the Inquisition, the Salem witch trials, and, well, Nazism, neo-Nazism, and White Supremacy. That Christianity has also influenced individuals to do good forces us to examine what it is that makes an ideology destructive.
And guess what: humanism ain't it. Science ain't it. Fascism and communism both turned science on its head by starting with unquestionable assertions and building arguments for them while killing anyone who argued against them. Such absolutism is what makes a movement destructive. Humanism is not inherently absolutist, and science is decidedly not. Religion, however, is by definition absolutist. Scientists abandon science when they stop using reason, when they stop testing and analyzing their assumptions. The religious achieve "enlightenment" when they do the same thing.
So maybe it's the recognition of the destructive role of suppression of reason, of unquestionable dogma, that has led Europeans to omit mention of Christianity from their Constitution, just as our founders omitted mention of God in both the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution. It may be, although I doubt it, reason and analysis that have led Europeans to stop going to church. At any rate, observers who say such secularism is dangerous, that regimes set loose of the moorings of religion are prone to brutality and destruction are just so, well, full of shit.
First of all, fascism was not secular. Fascism comes from fascis, the name of one of the symbols of the Roman Empire, the bundle of wheat, which Mussolini adopted as part of his attempt to portray himself as Caesar over a new Roman Empire. On the one hand it is simply a symbol of that empire, but remember also why it was a symbol: the wheat is bound together, identical in form and length. Try to bend on blade, and it breaks; try to bend the bundle, and it doesn't budge. If the bundle were formed of different kinds of grain, of different densities and lengths, it would be possible to weaken the whole structure by breaking the different ones. Thus, the fascis is a symbol of strength through unity and conformity -- and, by extension, the destruction of that within the bundle that does not conform. Logically, with unity and conformity, there is no need for debate, so a single ruler can know what is best for all -- and the fools among us will assume that he will do what is best for all. Finally, part of the conformity of Italian fascism was Catholicism: what's an Italian if he's not Catholic?
Nazism also was not secular: among the banners on display in marches and rallies were those that read "Gott mit uns!", which is German for "God with us" (not unlike isra-el, "God among us" -- neat, huh? Germany and Israel are also the only two countries I know of with the "right of return"), and Mein Kampf is full of references to God's will for justification of racial assertions, just as the doctrines of neo-Nazi and Aryan groups today. Aryan superiority is rooted in God's blessings, and Jewish acursedness is rooted in their rejection of God.
And communism, if lacking a deity, was still a religion. It had an unquestionable dogma: dialectic materialism; unimpeachable prophets: Marx, Lenin, Stalin; it had an inevitable, if distant, heaven: the utopia of the worker's paradise, wherein men would be freed of possession or greed, of exploitation or brutality. And the real kicker is, of course, that which is central to religion: it could not be questioned.
Secondly, there is no question that the most destructive ideology in history is Christianity: it undergirded the draconian force of Constantine's reign, the brutality of the conquests of the Americas and African and Asian colonies, the expulsion of the Jews from every Western European country and persecution and pogroms elsewhere in Europe, the peasants' wars, the Thirty-Years War, the Inquisition, the Salem witch trials, and, well, Nazism, neo-Nazism, and White Supremacy. That Christianity has also influenced individuals to do good forces us to examine what it is that makes an ideology destructive.
And guess what: humanism ain't it. Science ain't it. Fascism and communism both turned science on its head by starting with unquestionable assertions and building arguments for them while killing anyone who argued against them. Such absolutism is what makes a movement destructive. Humanism is not inherently absolutist, and science is decidedly not. Religion, however, is by definition absolutist. Scientists abandon science when they stop using reason, when they stop testing and analyzing their assumptions. The religious achieve "enlightenment" when they do the same thing.
So maybe it's the recognition of the destructive role of suppression of reason, of unquestionable dogma, that has led Europeans to omit mention of Christianity from their Constitution, just as our founders omitted mention of God in both the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution. It may be, although I doubt it, reason and analysis that have led Europeans to stop going to church. At any rate, observers who say such secularism is dangerous, that regimes set loose of the moorings of religion are prone to brutality and destruction are just so, well, full of shit.
posted by heavynettle at 11:50
2 Comments:
The primary (OK, one of the primary) problems with the European constitution is that it confuses first principles (the immutable) with laws derived from those principles (the fluid, or fickle). For instance, they enshrined a permanent national anthem--Ode to Joy Chorus--in the constitution. Many other minutiae and matters of current popular taste and fashion are also thus enshrined for eternity.
What's worse, laws making it illegal to challenge the current P.C. orthodoxy--for instance speaking out your opinion against religion or traditionally oppressed minorities is now illegal in many European countries--is also enshrined in the constitution. So you have a constitution attempting to permanently enforce social mores. The longterm affect of ridiculous laws or laws that are out of step with society is that respect for the law, or the constitution, is degraded. Europe is lucky they rejected such a proposition.
The European constitution is so moribund and intent on enforcing contempory enlightenment (or the perception of enlightenment anyway) that it was out of date before the ink was dry.
You know, I hadn't read the European constitution, so thanks for the info. I get the sense that the situation is analagous to the U.S. Constitution relative to the state constitutions: lots of bizarre and inappropriate powers in the state constitutions, which in the U.S. case our federal constitution did not enshrine. I could speculate on the differences, but at the end of the day it's just indicative of the amount of power European governments have had, and have in many case stepped back from, versus the amount of power the U.S. government started out with, and has stepped up.
Post a Comment
<< Home