In my first blog, Battle Lines, I ascertain that the Christian Right, the force behind this Administration, have "drawn the battle lines against secularism in America." Nicholas Kristoff of the New York Times published an interesting article that shows evidence that America is on the verge of a Great Awakening, that it is increasingly more religious in their thinking than they are intellectual.
The most unsettling poll Kristoff lists is that "Americans believe, 58 percent to 40 percent, that it is necessary to believe in God to be moral." In other words, it is solely a belief in God, rather than an individual’s self-control and self-mastery, that keeps one moral. Isn’t this like saying that a belief in Santa Claus keeps kids ethical– adhering.to the Golden Rule?
I mean, religion may teach morals; but living them is a matter of personal choice and responsibility, which is separate from one’s belief in God. And, if we are referring to morals strictly in the no-sexual-relations-before-marriage aspect of the definition, well, once again, is it a belief in God that stops immorality or someone teaching themselves to curb their sexual appetites and instincts?
When I was growing up, a sole belief in God surely did not stop a few God-fearing young men and women (who attended church regularly because they were expected to) from being promiscuous and getting "laid." More specifically, years ago, I worked as a convenient store clerk. One of the young women that was hired, a good Christian girl, had just had a baby out of wed-lock and had given it up for adoption. How did she get pregnant? It's a disturbing story. She broke it off with her boyfriend of six months. He was supposedly a good Christian--he told her numerous times he was going to go be a missionary. One night, only days after she had broken their relationship off, she was nabbed while walking down her driveway, taken into the bushes, and held while her boyfriend raped her.
The point of this is that morals don't simply just exist because of beliefs; they have to be realized and applied.
My second concern regarding Kristoff’s article is his use of the word "mystical." Maybe it is to point out that common sense is sloughing away; that this American Christianity is dumbing down–"[it] is becoming less intellectual and more mystical..."
A more mystical America is not a bad thing if these Christians follow the attributes of mysticism. What is mysticism? The mystic, according to Perle Epstein, in her book Kabbalah: The Way of the Jewish Mystic, is someone who is "emptied of their ego;" whose soul is "sufficiently cleansed by the ethical and spiritual practices centered on awe;" who believes that "all things are interrelated;" and who believes that their purpose of existence is to elevate other human beings to the divine.
To be more descriptive, Epstein includes the attributes that the mystic and Jewish scholar/teacher Moses Cordovero adhered to and taught:
1. Forbearance in the face of insult.
2. Patience in enduring evil.
3. Pardon, to the point of erasing the evil suffered.
4. Total identification with his neighbor.
5. Complete absence of anger, combined with appropriate action.
6. Mercy, to the point of recalling only the good qualities of his tormentor.
7. Eliminating all traces of vengefulness.
8. Forgetting suffering inflicted on himself by others and remembering the good.
9. Compassion for the suffering without judging them.
10. Truthfulness.
11. Mercy beyond the letter of the Law with the good.
12. Assisting the wicked to improve without judging them.
13. Remembering all human beings always in the innocence of their infancy.
In light of the above definition of mysticism, and after reviewing these attributes, you simply have to listen to the talk coming from the Christian Right and members of the Administration to know that they are not mystical in any form. In fact, I think the behavior and talk we see and hear more fits in line with Karen Armstrong's description of fundamentalism.
To explain, Armstrong defines that fundamentalism is a sacrifice of the intellect, or, as she calls it, the Logos.
What are the characteristics of the fundamentalist?
Consider these quotes from Armstrong’s masterful work The Battle for God:
Fundamentalists–
- "...seem so adamantly opposed to many of the most positive values of modern society" (page xi)
- "...have no time for democracy, pluralism, religious toleration, peacekeeping, free speech, or the separation of church and state"(page xi)
- "...are engaged in a conflict with enemies whose secularist policies and beliefs seem inimical to religion itself. Fundamentalists do not regard this battle as a conventional political struggle, but experience it as a cosmic war between the force of good and evil"(pagexiii).
- "...fear annihilation, and try to fortify their beleagured identity by means of a selective retrieval of certain doctrines and practices of the past. To avoid contamination, they often withdraw from mainstream society to create a counterculture"(page xiii).
- "...have absorbed the pragmatic rationalism of modernity, and under the guidance of their charismatic leaders, they refine these ‘fundamentals’ so as to create an ideology that provides the faithful with a plan of action. Eventually they fight back and attempt to resacralize an increasingly skeptical world" (page xiii).
With this in mind, I would have you read Michelle Groberg’s Salon article titled "Beautiful young shock troops for Bush." Pay attention to quotes that Michelle captured from the opening night's speakers. Rhetoric such as this is not mystical; it's fundamentalist in the most extreme. I dare say that it is not much different than rhetoric used by any group of people trying to take over the world, no matter if that group be Nazi or Bolshevik.
Consider the quote she captured by Jack Abramoff, who is a right-wing lobbyist and former College Republican chairman. She writes that Abramoff "exhorted the next generation to fight hard, lest ‘the ascension of evil, the bad guys, the Bolsheviks, the Democrats return.’"
Another point to discuss about this College Republican's Convention is how malleable and impressionable these young people's minds are. I've often wondered why is it that people can become so enamored by these aggressively pious types. I have been writing down thoughts for an upcoming blog tentatively titled On the Level of Gods.
In correlation with Kristoff's article is a valid opinion piece out of Britain, by George Monbiot of The Guardian. In his article "America is a Religion," he writes:
In facing this Great Awakening, then, I found a noteworthy thought from Karen Armstrong:
In closing, I want to approach the notion that fundamentalism is indeed an imbalanced religious phenomenon. Carl Jung, from his incredible phsychological work Symbols of Transformation. pointed out how religion causes neurosis to those who get caught up in an emphasis on the spirit. He writes:
Transcendence brings us full cirlce to mysticism again. The mystic is also well-rounded. The Kabbalist believes that there are five worlds to consciousness--Physicality, Emotion, Spirit, Primordial Source, and Intellect. These five worlds must never be separated but remain "concentric, one within the other." This ensures a healthy consciousness.
Religion, moreover religious individuals, must not acquiesce the right and God-given ability to increase intellectually. It's nearly our birthright, if you consider that Eve partook of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge so that we would be able to know what the gods know.
If I may use the proverb written in the Torah, "Where there is no knowledge, there is no understanding; where there is no understanding, there is no knowledge."
Obviously, the key to curbing the effects of fundamentalism is getting the Logos back into religious practice, somehow removing the threat it poses in this unique age of information and technology. Jesus taught that fear was of the devil. If we can elevate people above their fears and insecurities, we will have proven ourselves the victor, crushing the serpent's head.
