Posts
Via Larison, a thought-provoking review of a review of Marsh's Wayward Christian Soldiers:
Assuming we do not wish to operate within the parameters of liberal monism, and assuming that, as much as we may learn from Hauerwas, Marsh, and their ilk (most importantly, in Elshtain's view, the lesson that Christian teachings "effect...a strong severance...from rights-based liberalism"), we nonetheless do not want to feel obliged to "abandon appeals that have the capacity to stir not only the reason of [our] fellow citizens, but their consciences and souls as well" . . . , can we find a way to theorize and practice the kind of full bore Christian politics that King, by Elshtain's light, practiced: being able to issue a jeremiad that "sacralizes" a particular, extraordinary situation, and calls out those who are in the midst of it to almost consecrated action, but not to do so in such a way as to make that sacralizing obligatory, or co-extensive with political life as a whole? In other words, to formally keep open the possibility of--and preserve the structures and systems which enable on occasion--a real prophetic witness being brought forward, one that at the same time does not necessarily carry the force of that witness to every corner of this divided and often doubtful polity?
As I have blogged before, the long-term ambitions of the Religious Right are much more modest that such as Marsh and Linker both are willing to acknowledge, and the messianic liberalism of George Bush gave us such spectacularly bad policy because it was liberal, not messianic. But Dr. Fox's essay, and in particular the passage quoted above, perfectly frames my own internal conflict about the role of religion in public life.
I'm shopping for a civil religion that unifies us around our Anglo-Saxon tribalism. I want a nationalist public Christianity that expresses our shared sense of being a people and a civilization, but whose actual policy demands are constrained by prudence, and that otherwise leaves us free to pursue authentic, devotional Christianity in the privacy of our homes and churches.
I can only barely convince myself that this bill of order won't collapse of its own contradictions. But I'll keep trying.
UPDATE: Via Ace, a "bracing" piece by none other than the villiage atheist, Sam Harris:
In a thrillingly ironic turn of events, a shorter version of the very essay you are now reading was originally commissioned by the opinion page of Washington Post and then rejected because it was deemed too critical of Islam. Please note, this essay was destined for the opinion page of the paper, which had solicited my response to the controversy over Wilders' film. The irony of its rejection seemed entirely lost on the Post, which responded to my subsequent expression of amazement by offering to pay me a "kill fee." I declined.
God help him, but Sam Harris might someday wake up to the fact that the secularist worldview is powerless to defend the liberal order to which he is rightly devoted.
UPDATE 2: In the comments, Trumwill writes:
I make a point of keeping the Episcopal shield on my car and still identify as such. A significant part of that has less to do with what I believe and more to do with what religious (and ethnic) tradition that I am a part of. The offshoot of the Church of England. The church of a good swath of our nation's founders. A religious tradition that welcomes people from everywhere, but has its roots planted firmly where a good portion of my family's roots are (a lot of British, though some German).
Trumwill captures almost perfectly what I intend when describing the essence of America as Anglo-Protestant. I do NOT mean that we must hang a sign on our nation that says "Whites Only" (although, to be fair, there are those that often appear to mean exactly this). I don't even mean that we mustn't let in another immigrant, never ever. I mean that these immigrants must never be allowed to change our essence.
8 comments:
I have some thoughts on religion and public policy here.
I'm shopping for a civil religion that unifies us around our Anglo-Saxon tribalism.
I'll admit that my first reaction to this paragraph was a bit negative, but after reconsideration I can sort of understand where you're coming from. No doubt what you have in mind is quite different in form, but I kind of get the function.
I'm not a particularly devoutly or rigidly religious person (I can't go further into this without getting sidetracked), yet I make a point of keeping the Episcopal shield on my car and still identify as such. A significant part of that has less to do with what I believe and more to do with what religious (and ethnic) tradition that I am a part of. The offshoot of the Church of England. The church of a good swath of our nation's founders. A religious tradition that welcomes people from everywhere, but has its roots planted firmly where a good portion of my family's roots are (a lot of British, though some German).
I despise discussions among whites regarding how put-upon we feel and I don't feel the resentment some do about our restrictions, but as a general rule we don't get to express ethnic pride directly the ways that others do. The shield gives me an opportunity to do that in my own private way apart from those ways that carry negative connotations.
I'm particularly fortunate in this sense to have been raised in a church with less stringent theological demands where I can grapple with my thoughts on God and so forth in the privacy of my mind and heart and yet remain part of a tradition that traces backwards to that good portion of my lineage.
I know that this isn't exactly what you have in mind and maybe it's just completely off, but it seems to me to be not much more than a step or two off. You're thinking in terms of political repercussions and me more social repercussions, but there seems a connection in my mind.
Trumwill: you articulated this better than I could have myself.
I would add that I am rather more religious (orthodox Presbyterian, for what it's worth) in a personal and doctrinal way, but that my expectations of civil religion are perhaps more relaxed. This bifurcation between devotional religion on the one hand and civil religion on the other is partly because I recognize that my Calvinist heritage is not quite the mainstream tradition in America, and partly because the uniquely Calvinist contributions to political philosophy are, um, almost as scary as atheists accuse the Religious Right in general of being.
I recall a story from the early days (1994?) of Russia's campaign in Chechnya. It told of how the Russian infantry would rally themselves to battle with cries of "Khristos voskrese!" The soldiers admitted that they didn't know what it meant, but it sounded cool.
Well, I do know what it means, and I know that it has little to do with the ugliness of what the Russians did in Chechnya. But I will hurry past this and confess a hunger for something very much like it in our own expressions of public sentiment, because it would neatly tell our enemies: this is who we are. And WE are not YOU, atheistic communists, and not YOU EITHER, Muslim jihadists. And we WILL NOT SUBMIT to your false gods.
"I mean that these immigrants must never be allowed to change our essence."
But, phi, what exactly is your "essence"?
Secondly, you yourself are an immigrant-unless you're from the Native peoples! The irony of it all!
And what about the Catholics? How do they fit in with the 'essence of America'
Tell me, who are "these" immigrants who don't accord to *your* view of 'the essence'?
sorry, phi, I don't mind to sound rude or anything but your views strike me as mighty odd.
Biloo: If my views are odd, I'm in distinguished company.
I wouldn't characterize myself as an immigrant, but rather as a descendent of settlers. And I would offer the "Native Peoples" up as an example of how we should NOT run our immigration policy. They, too, failed to control their borders. Depending on your perspective, it didn't work out so well for them in the medium term.
As to "what immigrants don't accord" with American cultural norms, the short answer is: all of them. This is what assimilation is supposed to do: bring them into "accord". But the devil is in the details:
1. We have an historically high immigrant population.
2. The bulk of these immigrants come from a single country.
3. That country has historical irredentist claims on American territory.
4. That country makes active claims on the political and cultural loyalty of its emigrants, and their decendents.
5. That country does NOT have much in the way of a tradition of, among other things: the rule of law, transparency, enterprise, and cooperation.
6. That country CAN be characterized by its corruption, paternalism, and violence.
7. The immigrants it sends us, and their decendents, appear to have a mean IQ about 9 points below the American average.
8. The immigrants it sends us, and their decendents, commit violent crime at a rate about 3.6 times the American average.
9. The immigrants it sends us, and their decendents, create and settle in ethnic and linguistic ghettos.
10. The immigrants it sends us, and their decendents, have fertility rates far above the American average, assuring that problems 1 - 9 will tend to increase over time.
And these are just the cultural and social issues. The impact on the public fisc would require another post to explain.
In the face of this, we are taking in these immigrants at a time in our history when our engines of assimilation no longer function as they once did.
You remark about Catholics seems to imply that my reasoning sticks me with a dilemma: either I hate Catholics, or I can't have a problem with the the immigration of a century ago. I believe this to be a false dilemma.
For the record, I have no problem with American Catholics or American Catholicism. But both of these are much more culturally Protestant than they once were.
Our eventual success in assimilating the immigrants from southern and eastern Europe should
not blind us to how difficult a task it was, how much time it took, and the differences between the character of both the immigrants themselves and America then, and immigrant and American character today. But I would summarize it by saying that their successful assimilation required the immigration pause from about 1924 to 1965. Assimilating today's immigrants will require a pause at least as long.
Phi, I suggest you investigate Kinism. I have read there that actually as a Calvinist, you are in much better standing as the "founding people", so to say, than you may think. (Though I don't have a link to back up that statement, right off hand.)
Samuel Huntington made the point well when he distinguished between settlers and immigrants. He's right, too, that we expected Catholics to behave like Protestants. In particular, we expected them not to have a foreign loyalty. Fortunately, a lot of Catholics are losing their faith in Rome, although it is sad that so many are replacing their Catholic faith with secularism.
One doesn't have to hate Catholics to say that it was a mistake to bring in such diversity back in the 19th century. Catholics ought to live in Catholic countries and leave us Anglo-Protestants alone. Among other things, the Kinists provide a biblical justification for the ethno-state, which may surprise you.
One other thing: You link to the Wikipedia article on Christian Reconstructionism as if it is neutral in some way. If you have no personal experience with Christian Reconstructionists, you should not judge them by what you have heard from people who can't be expected to give them a fair shake. I know there are times when I have been guilty of repeating what I heard about some group from an unreliable source, and I always appreciate when someone calls me out on it.
Well, phi, if you think Huntington is "distinguished company" then I can only hold my hands up in exasperation!
"didn't work out so well". Er..yes, you could say that the destruction of their tradition and way of life was a *bit* of a setback! (Do look at J. Lear's Radical Hope if you get the chance).
What I said about Catholics does not imply the things you say (but I do find it revealing that you should put it that way). Nor is it, as you quaintly say, about "sticking" something on you!
I was just asking the question: if "we" is defined by Protestantism, then how do others (Jews, Catholics, for example) fit in. Your point about the fundamental background culture being Protestant is a great point-and I'm not denying that..I'm not in a position to deny it. Mine is simply a question about whether such tight definitions diminsih other important ideas and practices(citizenship, say) and whether they lead to an exclusiveness that is detrimental to social cohesiveness.
I don't know, I hear silly points about I.Q and I think how petty that is. As if that was the whole of intelligence, or as if intelligence was a prerequisite for citizenship or "assimilation". Liberal political regimes do not, I contend, work on notions related to some fundamental 'human nature'; instead, they work on the 'as if' idea (Iris Murdoch)..or the idea that it is a "self-evident" truth that people are equal.
In any case, could I just add that having lived in an Anglo-Protestant country for most of my life religion was a much more civilized thing than what I gather it is in America. The Protestants on your side of the pond sound like a rather excitable lot.
Post a Comment