Political Religion

Joseph Bottum writes,

We live in what can only be called a spiritual age, swayed by its metaphysical fears and hungers, when we imagine that our ordinary political opponents are not merely mistaken, but actually evil. When we assume that past ages, and the people who lived in them, are defined by the systematic crimes of history. When we suppose that some vast ethical miasma, racism, radicalism, cultural self-hatred, selfish blindness, determines the beliefs of classes other than our own. When we can make no rhetorical distinction between absolute wickedness and the people with whom we disagree.

Read the whole thing. The theme of political beliefs becoming a substitute for religion is an interesting one. I think that many human organizations, including corporations, religions, and political parties, exploit our need for tribal affiliation.

8 thoughts on “Political Religion

  1. Excellent read. I hadn’t realized that Protestantism had numerically dwindled to such a degree. I initially found it odd to think of Catholics outnumbering Protestants in the U.S., but it makes sense if you think everyone is either coming back to the mothership (Catholicism) or switching to non-Christian quasi-religions such as naive environmentalism.

  2. The way I see it, religion is a subset of political behavior – political behavior being any behavior which exploits human beings. While the objectives of political behavior are not inherently evil, the behavior itself contains the basic element of evil, and is therefore easily and frequently adapted by and for evil.

  3. Hmm, the data about membership is not so clear. If you look at affiliation, rather than church membership, then it’s Protestants 51%, Catholics 24%.

    Still, it is a fun idea. Certainly today’s Americans treat environmentalism like yesterday’s Americans treated their church.

  4. Let’s not lose sight of actual evil going on. I suspect it is some complex system of “good men doing nothing.” The drone operator assumes that his CIA handler did the correct vetting, and so on.

  5. But why? It seems we measure the long term without enough ‘deja vus’ to guide us. But why?

Comments are closed.