Why are so many people so reluctant to deny the obvious fact that Man cannot function without religion: without a shared basis of meaning, purpose and relationship?
Well, in the first place, Man can function without religion in the sense that he does not immediately die, and many aspects of life can continue. There are and have been over the past century, many examples of irreligious societies which were powerful.
But at the level of daily interaction, it is - or should be - obvious that a society without religion has no concept of what is Good. This means that we cannot even begin to discuss what it true, beautiful or virtuous - there are no actual public debates or discussions on these matters - just agreements or clashes of assertions and preferences.
Modern morality, the discourse which goes on in the public space - from the mass media and government, down to every committee in every organization and every casual conversation - is a gigantic fraud and evasion.
Consequently, life has no purpose or meaning or even coherence - but we have decided not to talk about it anymore.
We have given-up.
(Contrast the writings of the fifties 'beat' generation or sixties radicals - with their, admittedly tedious and tenuous, but obvious - strivings for a new spirituality and meaning; contrast this with the hollow aspiritual nihilism of modern progressives, whether in the establishment or on the fringes.)
On the one hand 'because we can' - we are addicted to distraction, and the distractions are pervasive - so we can always escape from the difficult questions by filling our minds with something else.
On the other hand, because we don't like the implications. As well as being addicted to distraction, we are addicted to the sexual revolution - in many and various ways - to keep us going as a 'hope' or aspiration.
The powerful emotions of both idealism and hatred which are evident in the warriors of the sexual revolution make clear that this is about far more than regarding sexual identities and preferences as a matter of 'personal choice' - it has become the arena of the greatest hope of which modern people are capable.
The sexual revolution is now the nearest we have to a state religion. Sexuality has displaced economics, politics, class as the basis of Leftism, which has been the dominant world view for fifty years.
(Even the modern discourse on race and ethnicity seems to be underpinned by an ultimate justification in sexuality insofar as it has any positive content, and is not merely the expression of underlying self-hatred and willed suicide.)
It ought to be obvious that the sexual revolution never has functioned, does not and never can function, as a religion - that it is a fake and ineffective, incoherent and dishonest religion.
Even worse, that it is (literally) pathetic for people to pin so much weight upon something which is at the same time defined as utterly arbitrary, contingent, change-able - so un-important that sexual choices can be regarded as purely personal.
(Like the movie actress Elizabeth Taylor's on-set behaviour; modern sexuality has a whim of iron. Whatever it wants now is absolute and urgent; then it wants something else...)
But this is the weight sexuality bears, and the secret function it serves, and the self-contradicting ineffectuality with which it operates in innumerable lives.
The nearest to 'salvation' is some more-or-less vague utopia of personal and social sexual 'gratification' - in this world now, or as a hope for the future.
And I would hazard that this fake semi-religion is now the greatest obstacle in the path of the absolutely-necessary revival of real religion; because all real religions have taken a very different and subordinated view of sexuality; a perspective from which the current language of liberation/ freedom/ rights is utterly alien and nonsensical.
So we don't notice because we are distracted; and we don't notice because to acknowledge reality would be to end our highest hopes - and yet our highest hopes are pathetically inadequate.
It would be interesting to know if there is any data correlating duration of historical civilizations before decline/collapse and the type of prevalent state religious belief or absence of religious beliefs. For example, the success of the Egyptian civilisation over several milenia compared to secular leftist western democracy is likely to be revealing, but of course that particular history is yet to run its course!
Put more succinctly is there *evidence* that *good* civilisations are more stable and last longer?! Just a thought.
The current matriarchy and moribund capitalism, by which I mean the type where intergenerational mobility is lower now than in the Medieval Era, need and want to eliminate consciousness of the end of religion. Such would be a severe competitor.
Women who matter (middle class and up white females) want no constraints on their sexual freedom. Men will want the crumbs, so they will comply.
Religion uplifts and orders on a spiritual level first. It puts a certain type of person first as well, which is the great threat, and must be destroyed. That process is now well advanced.
Real religion cannot prevail in a time of decline, materialist obsessiveness, and crystalizing re-feudalism.
Man is mind, body, and Spirit. All are necessary to be a complete man. Religion has been part of what makes us human since the first time a man looked up and wondered which one of his ancestors was which star.
We had to grope our way to the Truth until he revealed Himself to us in his mercy. Since then the warnings of the Enemy prowling like a Lion have come to pass. The prophecies of Fatima are clear to those who will see.
I would rather live in a definitely Christian society even if it were the middle ages than our modern 'Post Christian' society. Not all Christians are called to the same things. Some of us are called to the sword and some to martyrdom. We need to find our places in the line and support our brothers.
Elder Quentin L. Cook spoke on this at the Stanford University commencement yesterday: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/elder-cook-stanford-university-convocation
My mistake, it was at Convocation at Stanford, not Commencement.
A "whim of iron." A perfect description of the mentality of modern men and women. Maybe we have witnessed the "Triumph of the Whim."
It's worth acknowledging that Liberalism performs the functions of a religion, mutilated of course, and in a satanic capacity.
@MC. I would say liberalism performs Some Of the functions of religion, but not the important and necessary functions- because it is godless.
Post a Comment