| AMERICAN SPIRITUAL PRIDE AND ITS LOVE OF DIVISIVENESS |
http://groups.google.com |
| Robert Morpheal, Bob Ezergailis, Morphealism (morpheal@yahoo.com) |
2008/12/07 14:21 |
AMERICAN SPIRITUAL PRIDE AND ITS LOVE OF DIVISIVENESS
This article delves into the question of what characterizes American
spirituality, in its most fundamental and uniquely American form, as
government supported and promoted ideology. The article also looks at
why the spirituality of Americanism, a unique religious ideology unto
itself, seeks the continued division of Christianity into
irreconcilable Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican, and Lutheran major
divisions.
A sense of moral and spiritual superiority has always accompanied
superior military power. The tendency, in human history, has always
been for the nation that has more military might to claim that it also
has the most right and most true religion. The idea that might is
right has been a pervasive theme in both justice and the asserting of
religious truth, for as long as civilization has existed. It is
evident in the archeological record before written history began.
Partly this tendency comes from the ancient idea that justice is a
matter of the winner of a contest of strength and skill, beating the
opponent. Various forms of trial by contest in battle, and trial by
ordeal where survival indicates the outcome, formed much of the basis
of justice in earlier epochs. At some point the use of champions was
introduced, who would battle on behalf of the honor and rightness of
the disputants without the disputants themselves having to enter into
conflict. The reasoning behind this method of deciding disputes and
rightness or truth, was the same as the method for deciding which
tribe or nation was to be considered more right or true in its
assertions and actions. The winner in such contests of power and skill
in battle being considered favored by a divinity. No such contest was
simply a matter of man versus man, but instead they were believed
ultimately decided by a god. So the god of one was understood as being
called to support that one individual, tribe or nation, against an
other, individual, tribe or nation. The divinity was the judge who
ultimately decided victory, and thus right and truth. Whether it was
the same god, or two different deities pitched against each other,
made little real difference. It was still a matter of the gods, or of
god, deciding the matter. We need not delve any deeper into this, as
there is ample, reliable, literature on the subject, and we only need
to remember the basic principle that was involved.
Clearly this principle remains active in the modern world. It remains
a matter of one religion against another, and of one group and its
ideas seeking justification as to its greater ownership of truth and
right, compared to others. That is as true between very different
systems and also as true within the divisions of ideas within the same
system. While that idea of power, might, prowess in war, is not as
universally prevalent and not as totally decisive as it once tended to
be it remains a very potent factor.
We see this in Americanism today. We see a nation poised as the most
militarily powerful, claiming a special privileged relationship to
God, truth and right. We see that nation justifying itself on the
basis of invoking its God as its ultimate justification for pressing
its own beliefs, including its own peculiar form of government
other political symbols and government rituals pertaining to its
religiosity, quite distinct from any rationality, scientific fact, or
pure reason. We see a recourse to religious faith, but it is a faith
significantly at variance with the major divisions of organized
Christianity.
While those have their followings, inclusive of Orthodox, Catholic,
Anglican and Lutheran, America is none of those. They are tolerated
but they are not seen as the standard bearers of any ultimate
spiritual truth or right. It is a different religion that Americanism
puts forth as its own particular brand of truth and right. It backs
that assertion with its military power.
claim to control any armies, and cannot really assert military power
as justification. They have less access to and less control of any
military power than ever before in human history. They do not command
armies, even though they have been known to participate in the
politics of conflict, militating their own followers to one cause or
another, according to their own self interest as to their own systemic
survival, and also their concerns with questions of ethics.
European theologians have typically viewed the tendency to claim right
as a form of spiritual pride, which is itself seen as a failing not a
virtue. It does not matter whether that claim is being justified by
military power, or not. The ethical problem of a religious system of
ideas being considered as justified by its control over and connection
with military power is a separate and different issue. It is
noteworthy that European theology, and its long history of
philosophical depth, is not so well regarded in Americanism. It is a
purely academic consideration, but has little real import into
American society and ideology. It is largely ignored. It is
particularly ignored by the fundamentalist right wing in America. Of
course that is what we would expect. European theology is a challenge
to Americanism, not a supporter of its views. So Americanism tends to
prefer to promote theological emptiness. This increases the role of
military power as the main criterion of right and truth. Where deep
and critical theology is lacking, military might tends to have pre-
eminence over theological and philosophical intellect.
We see this in Americanism, but we also have seen that same tendency
reflected in Stalinist communism, prevalent in the 20th century.
Stalinist communism took a might is right, and military power is
truth, attitude. It tended to banish its intellectuals. It disliked
philosophy and theology, almost equally. That was for the same reasons
as Americanism dislikes critical intellect and prefers a very
superficial form of religiosity tied to its mechanisms of power and
governance.
The difference as to godless communism versus god oriented
Americanism, being one of the major justifications for the military
conflict between the two. There is no reconciliation of that divide
and ultimately only trial by ordeal and trial by combat is able to
resolve right and truth, in the ancient and retrogressive of might is
essentially the same as proclaiming faith in overwhelming military
might as being the prime and sometimes sole determinant of what is to
be understood as truth and right.
Not much progress there.
So why have we gone to this length to explore this particular subject
area ? There is another deeper reason. We see the continued
spiritual chosenness, its special monopoly on right, and its claiming
of its own ideas of truth as being universalizable to all of humanity,
as being an obstacle not only to real progress in the world, but also
to cooperation and many forms of conflict resolution. The very method
of imposing special rightness and privilege as to truth, mixing
military might with a unique spirituality, a religious system at the
same fact. That type of retrogressive claim as to might is right,
merging militarism with spirituality, and concepts of spiritual
warfare with concepts of military warfare, does nothing for real
conflict resolution. It simply seeks to impose one view, forcefully,
against another, selecting its victims according to which side is
nearer to sharing the same ideological beliefs, inclusive of religion.
Of course a willingness to adopt the same brand of religion or to
modify existing brands to a more Americanist faith, merging
religiosity with economics, politics, and social and psychological
structuring and functions is more likely to gain some military
support. No surprises there. What then does this lead to ?
Americanism needs divisiveness. It needs Orthodox, Catholics,
Anglicans, and Lutherans, in particular to remain at odds with each
other, and essentially in irreconcilable conflicts. That is what
sustains Americanism as a spiritual power, and nurtures its own claims
to pre-eminence as to rightness and truth. If the major Christian
religious divisions were to reconcile their differences, Americanism
would be a lesser minority than it has become. It would lose a large
part of its own spiritual primacy. It is only that divisiveness that
wrongness of the divided schismatic groups within the preceding
generations of the Christian ideology. Americanism claims its place,
according to traditional concepts of military might makes right, at
the top of the religious, spiritual, pyramid of mankind. Those other
faiths, such as Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican and Lutheran, are pushed
ideologically down, further kept in division against one another and
their reconciliation largely opposed by Americanism.
Of course one of the ways Americanism has chosen to promote its own
ideology above all others, and to increase divisiveness at the same
time, is to threaten those who do not accept Americanism as their own
faith, with the loss of freedoms, inclusive of private ownership of
their things, and property, including homes. That arm twisting
mentality is always blamed on communism, Catholicism, Anglicanism,
Orthodox, and other non Americanist faiths and ideologies. It is never
Americanism, the actual arm twister, threatening incomes, freedom of
association, freedom of sexual (including marital) relations, and
almost anything else that people tend to value in their personal
else in the spiritual hierarchy. Of course spiritual blackmail,
spiritual extortion, even when taken to extremes and used as
justifications for all manner of other wrongs, inclusive of some forms
of criminality where material loss is claimed to be replaced with
spiritual gain, is also consistent with a system built on the basis of
military power, where might is largely what determines right. That
subject needs further exploration by others. Even the extreme
dialectic of eastern anti intellectualism, and stance on private
property ownership appears significantly manipulated to that dialectic
of loss to give Americanism a clearer and more unambiguous contrast to
exert its power against. Certainly questions of truth could not be
answered within that context of the conflict of claims as to
absolutist Americanist spiritual right versus the claims as to the
The politics of that rise of Americanism, claiming special truth and
spiritual right, based on military might, would, clearly, be more ably
opposed by a reconcilation and reunification of the major divisions of
Christianity, on the basis of their common anti-Americanist grounds.
In man ways the reconcilation would far more effectively stand as more
meaningful opposition to the Americanist agenda of spiritual warfare
and spiritual conquest of the world, inclusive of political co-
optation and subversion of its competing ideologies, inclusive of
Americanism is genuinely Christian, and what is right and true within
Americanism, remains a question for the theologians. It becomes a
question for the theologians because Americanism has proclaimed itself
as a government and military power based on a core foundation of
spirituality and religious faith that it believes justifies all of its
other claims, in all other areas of life and commerce, as to
Robert Morpheal
This article may be copied, reproduced, distributed in any form, by
any means, anywhere, and in fact anyone is encouraged to do so.
|
|
|