Saturday, 6 February 2016

Which religion would you support to rule your nation? Choose - or have the choice made for you (Note added today)

It is currently inconceivable that we in the West could have a government which regarded Christianity as the first and central principle of organizing life. A large majority of the population would oppose this, would indeed regard the idea as utterly monstrous.

And yet, of course, all long term stable and authoritative governments throughout history have put some religion as the first and central part of organizing all aspects of human life: politics was based-on religion.

Examples would include the Kingdoms of Ancient Egypt - which lasted 3,000 years, and the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire - which lasted 1,000 year; both of which were permeated by religion in their ideals - and often in their attainment.

The idea that decent government can be attained without religion is still just an idea - since what we currently have would neither be regarded as stable nor as government by people in the past.

It is very clear now that the Western elites want to destroy their societies - one way or another; the favoured methods currently seems to include (but not be restricted to) the destruction of marriage and family, chosen reproductive sterility with an ever-ageing population, and unrestricted mass inward-migration including a high proportion of dependents and aggressors.

But at the root of this is the negative decision to dispense with religion as the unifying aspect of government - and the utter failure to find any other positive principle with which to replace it. 

So the West is characterized by implacable hostility to real Christianity, and a focus on the permanent revolution of destroying the Christian legacy including inverting the transcendental Goods of Truth, Beauty and Virtue.

Since the Leftist project is in its essence negative and destructive, it will necessarily be replaced by some positive polity (at the point when the Left has so weakened the power, will and morale of the West in a particular place that some local religious group becomes by default more powerful, and is motivated to take-over). So we will get religion at the centre of politics again; the only question is which religion, and this will vary from place to place.

Trends are in place which often allow the outcome to be predicted in a particular situation; but there remains scope for summated individual choices to change the predicted outcome.

The most important political question of our day is therefore to determine which religion you, personally, would and should support as the basis of your government.

You can - of course - opt-out of the choice, and forgo even any possibility of influencing the outcome. But that is, in effect, still a choice: it is the choice to allow other people to decide which religion should be the basis of your country.

**

Note added: This post is focused on the decision of which religion you choose to support. This, of course, goes far beyond the scope of the adherents of a religion. It is possible (and such things have happened, quite often indeed) that a large proportion of the population support rule by religion X in preference to religion Y, despite that the adherents of religion X are only a small minority. 

Likewise, given the actual available choices and trends; it may be that atheists, agnostics, and various non-Christian religions would support Christianity as the basis for government, having made the judgment that:

1. There must be a religion as the basis of government; and 

2. Christianity is the best religion.  

Indeed, even if there is a large and powerful Christian awakening and revival (which there absolutely must be for matters to improve in The West), for Christianity to make a difference at the worldly and secular level would require at least the consent - if not active support - of a much larger number of people than the actual Christians. 

(Or, should I say, 'probably' the above; because there are unknown and unseen factors at work in the world - not least the possibility of direct divine interventions - and hope comes from the most unexpected quarters.)

14 comments:

Bruce Charlton said...

Comment from Mark Citadel: "Christianity is at war, primarily with a usurpatious cult, but for a time following the French Revolution we fell asleep and forgot there even was a war, as I am sure many in South Korea forget that they are technically still at war with the North. As we are acceleration in the collapse of our societies, this war will become impossible to ignore and the decision to be made will be are people with Christ, or against Him. Beyond that distinction, I do not care [what or who] a man worships... He has no place in Occidental land. "

Leo said...

Three quotes come to mind.

In Fiddler on the Roof the appropriate blessing for the Tsar is, “May God bless and keep the Tsar...far away from us.”

From the late Tsutomu Yamaguchi, a double survivor of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki: “Only breast-feeding mothers should be allowed to control countries that have nuclear weapons.”

And from American Founding Father John Adams: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Which means that if the people or the government have lost the approval of heaven, no system, religious or governmental, will save them. So the question really is which religion would most likely produce a righteous people? I have the same answer as everyone else: the one I subscribe to. Otherwise, why would I subscribe to it?

Bruce Charlton said...

Albrecht Commented: "For several months I worked among a group of fairly bright and capable people. They were, I think, representative of what the American middle class has morphed into. When they were not talking about the job they discussed TV shows, movies, pop music, sports and food (food a lot). Those under 40 were heavily into video games.

"If religion somehow came up (one guy's Christmas Eve plans included attending Mass with family) it was followed by an almost frantic disclaimer that the speaker was NOT a Christian. Once I overheard another woman say, very casually of someone she disliked, "She's a Christian. She's a horrible person."

"The only talk about anything of substance that was permitted was the occasional remark in total conformity with politically correct dogma. It was considered a VERY GOOD THING that the woman in Kentucky who would not issue a marriage license to homosexuals was subjected to legal and national media torment. It seemed most of them had been indoctrinated from childhood not just to hate and fear religion and morality but to be incapable of appreciating what possible purpose such things might serve.

"This coldness to religion did not, however, extend to the guy who kept a portrait of that Beatle guru in his cubicle and who ostentatiously announced that he was a Buddhist (the kind that likes fried chicken sandwiches). Likewise, when [another] colleague told us he was taking a day off for a holiday that, as he described it, involved the ritual slitting of an animal's throat and the draining of its blood, he was given a friendly and respectful hearing.

"Based on this admittedly small but, I'd wager, representative sample I would guess that the considerations you raise in this post are entirely foreign to the thinking of most of this generation."

Bruce Charlton said...

@Albrecht - Yes indeed, as you say things *are* so far gone in the UK that I can't allow commenters, or indeed myself, to be clear and explicit. I blog under my real name and address, and the so-called 'hate crime' laws and employment regulations are enforced very severely - albeit sporadically and selectively - espcially in academia. But your comments are welcome - and I am happy to make any edits that I deem necessary.

Observing said...

To choose wisely takes an investment of time and energy. I've spent three years now investigating both the Catholics and Mormons. All very interesting but not for me, especially not in their churchly manifestation in this world.

It looks the same that I could spend a few years on Orthodox Judaism and what you refer to as the other monotheism.

If we're talking governing religions I suppose Buddhism or Hinduism is off the table in the West.

I was hoping for a Colin Wilson style (r)evolution if there was to be any, and that too looks collapsed. The type of person he was talking about seems almost gone from the world.

Do you have any recommendations in regards to processing making a choice in a timely fashion?

Albrecht said...

Sorry if I came off a little snarky. I don't know why I'm shocked but I am. It reminds me of an essay by the Australian philosopher, David Stove, Paralytic Epistemology, or the Soundless Scream in which he likens western societies' inability to respond to the menace of Communism to the common nightmare of facing a terrifying peril but being unable to scream. As my first comment would indicate things are hardly much better here.

Bruce Charlton said...

@Obs - Well, from the perspective of this post I would support Christianity, obviously - and that means *any* form of Christianity or any combination of Christians.

(I am implicitly only referring to real Christians, and not self-identified Christian Liberals.)

I don't see any likely candidates for Christian revival here in the UK, but if any emerged I would support them - although I don't suppose I would join them.

I myself am currently not affiliated to any denomination - because I do not qualify for membership of any church that I regard as worth joining, and I do not attend a church (or, only sporadically). My belief and loyalty is, however, to the CJCLDS.

But I do not regard myself as a model, and I would not recommend my own situation - except that to be even an unaffiliated Christian is infinitely better than not to be a Christian at all!

Bruce Charlton said...

@Alb - Things are very bad indeed - and I speak from a combination of personal experience and the experience of several friends and colleagues, as well as research. And the badness is not even secret - but most people approve of the oppression. This is an extremely deeply corrupted society, where moral inversion is the unexceptional norm.

Anonymous said...

"But I do not regard myself as a model, and I would not recommend my own situation - except that to be even an unaffiliated Christian is infinitely better than not to be a Christian at all!"

Truly, I don't believe it matters whether a person belongs to one denomination or another. Only one thing matters - that he or she be a real Christian, not a pretend one.

A real Christian is one who believes that Christ died for our sins and was resurrected. Even if Christians get other things wrong - misinterpreting God's other messages included, so long as they remain believers in the resurrection, then they are Christians.

Whenever I come across a person who self identifies as a Christian, I ask them whether they believe in the literal death and resurrection of Christ. If they say yes, and yet a lot of their other views seem to me to be non-Christian, I don't decide that they are not Christians, I decide that they are Christians who are plain wrong about certain matters.

Sometimes I come across a self identified Christian who tells me that they think of the death and resurrection of Christ as 'just a symbol'. Then even if they have sound views on other aspects of Christian values, then to me, they are not Christians.

The death and resurrection of Christ is central to Christianity, and those who believe it are saved, even if the rest of their thinking is a mass of error, and their behaviour worse. For me, that is what is so great about Christ's message. Even the prodigal son who returns to the Father gets the fatted calf treatment.

It doesn't get better than that.

Seeker

Imnobody said...

I'm with Mark Citadel. The decision to label the modernity cult (the ideology derived from the so-called "Enlightenment") as "a non-religion" has been the main mistake of the West and, specifically, of Christians.

This way, in the name of neutrality and separation of Church and State, all religions have been forbidden from the government, school and mass media EXCEPT MODERNITY. Modernity has become the official religion of the West while claiming it is not a religion and banning all the other religions. Brilliant. The work of a fallen angel who is very smart...

There can be no society without an official religion. Each country must have a law. Each law must define what is allowed and what is forbidden. So you must define what behaviors are considered good (so you allow them) and what behaviors are considered bad (so you forbid them). That is, you must have a morality. A morality has to be based on a worldview. Worldview+morality = religion. In our case, materialism+utiliarianism = modernity (the religion of the West, of which Leftism is a sect).

In my Church and University (I am a teacher), I define modernity as a religion. Only this way, we can fight against it. Otherwise, modernity is presented as the neutral truth and Christianity as a partial opinion.

Modernity is a destructive religion. It will destroy the society until it is no longer viable: a parasite destroying its host. Then, other religion will replace it. I am for Christianity.

Bruce Charlton said...

@Imn - While Modernity can be considered a religion, I think this is misleading in the sense that modernity is Leftism, and Leftism (overall and in the long term) is a negative, destructive, anti-religion thing. So it does not function as a religion - but rather tends to subvert, invert, destroy religion.

Bernard Brandt said...

The three Christian Churches which seem to have had a good record in Church/State concord and reasonable civilizations, as well as the best opportunities for continual rule, would appear to be the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the (traditional) Roman Catholic Church, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, in that order.

The various Protestant sects have all been tried, and found wanting. After a few centuries, they wither away. And, alas, we are finding that to the extent that church leaders in the modern RC Church adopt Protestant attitudes or principles, they too wither away. In fact, His Holiness Benedict XVI has long held that it is inevitable that the RC Church will become a lesser and less influential church within the next few years.

The one problem with the LDS Church is its relative youth: it is less than two centuries old. Thus, we can not yet tell whether it will stand the test of time. Remember, the Protestant sects took four or so centuries to self destruct. I therefore must conclude that the church which has the best chance of helping a renewed Western Civilization would be the Orthodox Churches. However, the probabilities of that coming to pass are obese. In other words, fat chance.

Imnobody said...

@Bruce

Of course, it depends how you define "religion". Are religions destructive? Again, it depends how you define "religion" but we know sects and cults that are this way. Must a religion have a notion of transcendence? Well, Confucianism has not such a notion.

If you say that Modernity cannot be called "religion" because destroys society, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism and so on, you are right. Then, "religion" means "constructive worldview".

But, IMHO, this only muddles things and is counterproductive. For the uninitiated, this is interpreted as Christianity, Islam, Buddhism are religions (irrational and partial) and Modernity is only the truth or basic human decency (rational and neutral). So all worldviews different from Modernity are at disadvantage. Since there is a separation between religion and State, only Modernity is entitled to structure society. This is how Christianity has been banned from the public discourse in the West.

I think this is a major mistake of ours. The same mistake that the Mensheviks committed by accepting the label "Menshevik" (minority) while giving the Bolshevik word (majority) to Lenin. We accept the labels of the enemy and then we see how we lose and lose in a society structured as a theocracy of Modernity.

Bruce Charlton said...

@Imn - I describe what I mean by destructive - intrinsically, of its nature, necessarily - here:

http://addictedtodistraction.blogspot.co.uk/