This is a nice survey of reactionary theo-politics in America. Have you ever read Mark Lilla's book "The Stillborn God"? He looks at the differentiation of politics and religion historically through the prism of major (mostly European) philosophers writing about the topic starting with Hobbes. He calls this the "Great Separation". It's r…
This is a nice survey of reactionary theo-politics in America. Have you ever read Mark Lilla's book "The Stillborn God"? He looks at the differentiation of politics and religion historically through the prism of major (mostly European) philosophers writing about the topic starting with Hobbes. He calls this the "Great Separation". It's really the process of differentiation that is the prime mover of liberalism. These reactionary ideas seem to aim at knitting politics and religion back together. What's weird to me is that I experience the American tradition as inherently, if not perfectly liberal -- all the way back to the Founding Fathers. A "post-liberal" politics, as these people describe it, would actually be European, and not really American, but the Europe of the middle 18th century, not the Europe of today. It's really not clear to me that Humpty Dumpty can be put back together again in the manner that these writers fantasize about. It's more likely we get Putinism -- squalor and brutality and lies.
One thing that these writers identify is that, while liberalism has advanced a new order of political culture, our religious culture hasn't changed much, at least in form, and this has led to attrition in observance. For the most part, we have the same menu of Axial Age religions as people did in the Middle Ages, and their rituals are increasingly marginalized in our communal cultural experience. We can tolerate different religious outlooks from a political point of view, but if we don't address religion on its own terms, politics aside, there ends up being a hole in the culture. Do we have the right approach to religion for a contemporary industrial society? If not, what should that look like? My feeling is that we don't because the religions of the past are not congruent with modernity, and I sketched out a potential new approach in my last essay for Arc. I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on religion -- without a political mandate, what forms of religious observance are congruent with our culture and historical moment? How can this congruence be defended intellectually?
This is a nice survey of reactionary theo-politics in America. Have you ever read Mark Lilla's book "The Stillborn God"? He looks at the differentiation of politics and religion historically through the prism of major (mostly European) philosophers writing about the topic starting with Hobbes. He calls this the "Great Separation". It's really the process of differentiation that is the prime mover of liberalism. These reactionary ideas seem to aim at knitting politics and religion back together. What's weird to me is that I experience the American tradition as inherently, if not perfectly liberal -- all the way back to the Founding Fathers. A "post-liberal" politics, as these people describe it, would actually be European, and not really American, but the Europe of the middle 18th century, not the Europe of today. It's really not clear to me that Humpty Dumpty can be put back together again in the manner that these writers fantasize about. It's more likely we get Putinism -- squalor and brutality and lies.
One thing that these writers identify is that, while liberalism has advanced a new order of political culture, our religious culture hasn't changed much, at least in form, and this has led to attrition in observance. For the most part, we have the same menu of Axial Age religions as people did in the Middle Ages, and their rituals are increasingly marginalized in our communal cultural experience. We can tolerate different religious outlooks from a political point of view, but if we don't address religion on its own terms, politics aside, there ends up being a hole in the culture. Do we have the right approach to religion for a contemporary industrial society? If not, what should that look like? My feeling is that we don't because the religions of the past are not congruent with modernity, and I sketched out a potential new approach in my last essay for Arc. I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on religion -- without a political mandate, what forms of religious observance are congruent with our culture and historical moment? How can this congruence be defended intellectually?
Not ignoring this, just contemplating the question
It's a lot to think about. I understand.