#81 Musings Beyond the Bunker (Wednesday July 7)
Good morning!
THE CASE FOR RELIGION
I thank Ron Stern for turning me on to an article in The Atlantic that comes the closest to explaining the religious fervor with which people embrace political positions—including conspiracy theories.
The basic thesis is this: In the past half century, we’ve experienced a drop in religious affiliation from over 70% to less than 20% of the population. But that void hasn’t remained a void (remember the maxim, “equity abhors a vacuum”). We humans have a need to find a touchstone around which we can build a belief system and a way of life. For all the challenges religion has presented throughout history, religion and religious institutions have provided a moral center—a third party intermediator—to provide us a “starting point” from which to face the world. The article’s premise is that religious affiliation and fervor is being replaced with political affiliation and fervor. People seek connection with others and they seek a belief system that regularly is repeated, supported and defended.
RELIGION AS AN ORGANIZING INFLUENCE
I’ve been thinking about the central communitarian role religion has played in our history and our culture. The civil rights movement was centered around religion, as have been food kitchens and the formation of countless charitable and social service organizations. It has provided a “home” for contemplation of events of natural tragedy. I remember vividly the seating in the aisles at a service at our Temple in the aftermath of 9/11, trying to make sense out of how the world had changed and to collectively grieve.
Religion provides ritual and routine. Marriage vows are exchanged under the (real or imagined) watchful eye of a benevolent g-d, who has expectations and demands of us. Babies are born. Loved ones are mourned. The cycles of life are joined by the cycles of the year and the holidays that are commemorated as a community. Each weekend, one is assured that there is a service nearby, populated by a variety of people—regularly observant, mourning, celebrating, seeking support or just lonely in need of the presence of others.
THE CIVIC RELIGION
I suppose the first step away from the central organizing strength of religion and the sense of community it creates (and ethics it prizes and instills) is the idea of a “civic religion.” Most people of our generation were raised with the notion that this nation, one of the few based not on a religious creed, was founded on moral principles. These principles were enshrined in the American “dream,” the Constitution and the central myths of our history. It formed a basis for beliefs that we all could share, irrespective of our religious upbringing or belief system and it was aspirational, even if not always true. It was, in many ways, a civil religion that was an adjunct to—but not substitute for—religion.
Along with the civic religion came civic engagement. In the post-war era the Elks, Shriners, Lions, Kiwanis and other local fraternal organizations grew in number and influence. Each identified with a chosen charitable mission. That civic engagement was present, as well, in bowling leagues, little league baseball, and other common pursuits.
THE POLITICAL RELIGION
But something has been happening that is problematic. Civic engagement and the civil religion has given way to political tribalism. Where before we previously identified with the Constitution, the Founders, and the historical antecedents that contributed to our shared experience (both good and bad), the Constitution now is used as a cudgel to malign our political adversaries and the Founders are painted solely through the lens of their failings, as seen through a 21st century lens. When we no longer can believe in our founding myths, people now are turning to political parties and movements for their sense of community and joining. These parties and movements increasingly are the source of central moral/ethical frameworks. And because parties are, at their core, flexible and fluctuate with the movements of people, they have no central belief system.
Religions have evolved over time, but they have done so without surrendering their core belief systems. Take the Catholic church. It once denied scientific facts and burned heretics (which included others, including my ancestors, who were of different religions). Now, the Catholic church arguably is one of the most ecumenical of the major religions, expanding cooperation with other faiths. But when the “god” you worship is not the result of centuries of theological thought and debate, one that theoretically is carefully considered, when the “god” is a political party or point of view, the perspective is current, loud, jaundiced, with an agenda.
And since a two-party system requires that there be a winner and a loser—no one wants to be a loser. To lose is to have been destroyed by the forces of evil. There is no compromise, there is no “loyal opposition,” and there is no “better luck next time.”
CONSPIRACY AS EXPLANATION FOR FAILING
Since a religion must in some sense speak of inviolable truth, no doubt political religion falls within the same context. Just as when a religion previously was defeated by infidels, it was the work of the devil, so too it must be here. If there isn’t a simple explanation for why the opposition is ascendant, it must be evil forces at work. And when simple answers can’t offer an explanation, to wit, “we simply lost the election,” an alternative explanation must be provided. That alternative often takes the place of a fantastical theory. Hence, craziness like QAnon and organized unproven yet sophisticated international organizations to manipulate the election gain traction—especially when the prophets of this religion (e.g., Mr. Trump) repeat the extraordinary lie of the alleged conspiracy.
WHAT MUST ONE BELIEVE—IF ANYTHING?
It is time the institutions that have belief systems independent of the politics of the moment reassert a calm, reasoned, moral view of the world. I think we need to start thinking of religion as an organizing institution of a civil society and moral framework, rather than necessarily, well, religious. My suspicion is that most members of religious groups, including the regular attendees at services, are agnostic at best and perhaps even atheists. Maybe to get the other agnostics and atheists, our great religions need to advertise that “you need not believe.” Perhaps it is enough to believe in the myth, or the life-force or whatever. Perhaps we need to tell people that they need only surrender to morality and community—spirituality and belief may (or may not) come.
Perhaps religions should open their doors more transparently to non-believers. While I am delighted that others believe in an almighty g-d, I care more that they participate in church activities and engage with other church members. I care that they learn the ethics of the religion, the bible stories, the stories of the courage of the early church, and practice the lessons of the religion to help those less fortunate.
I’m saying non-believers should become church-goers, not necessarily for the worship (it is a question of choice) but for the community, the moral framework, the ethical teachings, the community, and the impetus to go out and do good.
Best,
Glenn
From the archives: