Businesses need workers and consumers. Governments need taxpayers. Churches and other such organizations need a critical mass of members and contributors. And so, we get warnings from the Japan’s prime minister that they simply must increase the birth rate. Economists have made such warnings also for the United States and China. So, it is the duty of women to have more babies to support the economy?
What is the spiritual future of that? Children can’t be told the lie that they exist because of their parents’ love or that they exist because God loves them. No, they exist to serve the economy.
Of course, this is totally backwards. The economy should serve the people, not the people the economy. And no one should have more children than they really want. If the economy will suffer, and social institutions, then the economists must invent new forms of economy. Not only is it inhumane to call for more workers to be conceived, the future of ever-expanding economies will deplete what our host, the earth, can supply. And to simply allow more immigrants in because we need more workers and consumers, while that should be done, it is not the right reason. Motivation matters in how we treat people.
Be sure to thank chance (Fortuna) for what you have to be grateful for this Thanksgiving. We tend to overlook the role that chance plays when things go well for us. The Greeks and Romans did not. Back in the days of polytheism, chance was separated out as a goddess in her own right. Fortuna was her name.
Chance has been secularized as Lady Luck, but this is in situations, like gambling, where we know that chance or luck are at play. Even though people superstitiously try to influence chance (cross my fingers, knock on wood) there is no way to do that.
Many people in a monotheistic belief system operate as if there were no meaningful chance. When good things drop in their lap, they thank God, when they should be thanking Fortuna. When misfortune happens, they get conflicted about God, when God has nothing to do with it. No, Professor Einstein, God does not roll dice, Fortuna rolls dice.
One might wonder why a creator God would have things operate by chance or probability rather than merit. For Christians, there is the Parable of the Sower. Jesus told about the farmer who cast his seeds randomly, so seeds fell on good soil and bad. We can see this as a parable about Fortuna, who does things blindly or randomly. Some statues of Fortuna show her blindfolded as riches spill out of her cornucopia. Consistent with that, Jesus said that rain falls on the just and the unjust. (Matthew 5:45) This is important to remember. Why? Chance may be as fair as it gets.
For people who operate outside monotheism, they can easily say that “shit happens,” and that’s that. It happens to good people and bad. Nothing to get hung up about.
So, we can look at ways we’ve been unlucky this year, like living in a place that had historically devastating weather or getting COVID despite being very cautious. But Thanksgiving is the time to identify how luck has come down in our favor, however that might be, big or small. This is important so we don’t think that we have somehow deserved the good fortune that has come our way. This makes us more considerate toward those whose luck has not been so good.
Some think chance is unfair, that what happens in life should be based on merit. Some believe that everything is based on merit, like karma would suggest, that we somehow deserve whatever we get in life, good or bad. But this ignores the huge role chance plays, even in the circumstances we were born into and the opportunities that follow from that. And it sets us up to treat others unjustly.
So, let’s not forget Fortuna and notice where good luck is operating.
We don’t want to be like the person Coach Barry Switzer described, the one who was born on third base and goes through life thinking they hit a triple.
Thank you, Fortuna, for whatever good luck has come my way!
Scientists make speculations to generate ideas to test empirically. Their speculations are within the bounds of what is already known. The rest of us, not so much. Our motives are generally not to seek the truth of anything.
Now there are people making public speculations on why Paul Pelosi was attacked in his own home. Why would they do that?
Speculation is a form of motivated reasoning.
Public speculation hurts people we want to hurt. We care more about that than about the truth. “I’m just saying….”
One motive is to exert power. It sends the message that I can do the same thing to you, so don’t get out of line.
Public speculation demonstrates how smart we are, that we don’t just accept the official word about something like the sheep do. So, if you want to know what is really going on, listen to me, not to them.
We speculate to avoid feeling stupid, that we don’t know the answer to something. We can catch ourselves in this when we hear ourselves saying, “I don’t know, but….” The ethical alternative is to just say, “I don’t know,” and leave it at that. Better to feel stupid than to hurt someone.
We could identify others, but you get the idea.
So why would the likes of Elon Musk, Donald and Donald Jr. publicly speculate on why someone was attacked when they are in no position to actually know anything about it?
Is President Biden too old? Is quarterback Tom Brady too old?
Are we really inviting people to engage in age discrimination? I hope not, but then (full disclosure), I’m old. But so have been some really great baseball managers.
When an old person makes a blunder, we blame their age. When a person in their prime makes a similar one, we regard it as a mistake.
To not hire someone or not vote for them based on anything but their qualifications and performance is simply unfair. It is also kinda stupid as it categorically rules out a lot of great people. Age, gender, race, whatever.
If Tom Brady can no longer read defenses fast enough or throw the football hard enough or far enough, then those are the reasons to bench him. Not his age.
Similarly with politicians. Performance matters; age does not.
It is difficult to not engage in age discrimination. Really. My doctors seem too young to be competent. I’m wrong about that. Likewise, I can find myself thinking that a politician is too young or too old. That does not lead to good decisions to really important questions.
We need to watch our prejudices when they sway our judgment and not let them get the better of our decision making. The well-being of the nation depends on it. Voting is not the time or place to be exercising our prejudices.
“ So out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air and brought them to the man to see what he would call them, and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.” -Genesis 2:19, New Revised Standard Version, updated edition
When Donald Trump gives someone a disparaging nickname, he loses all capacity to see them for who they are, while revealing who he is. One who relishes asserting power over others.
And so, it has been learned, ask of every living thing and every place you encounter, “Do you have a name? How do you prefer I refer to you?” Listen carefully. Respect what you hear and when there is nothing to hear.
Naming obscures all but the namer, whose heart it reveals.
“Without the Bible, there is no America.” -Sen. Josh Hawley (NBC News, Allan Smith, Sept. 23, 2022)
Sixty-one percent of Republicans and 17% of Democrats think the US should declare itself a Christian nation, according to a recent U Maryland survey. This, despite many recognizing that it would violate the Constitution.
Why would Christians think their religion should dominate a nation? Hawley is right that much of it is derived from the Bible, which has functioned as the playbook for Christian nationalism. While liberal Christians choose to think he is wrong about that, the American myth may not have the qualities discussed below if it were not for the Bible.
Christians get to judge
In the Gospels (Matthew 18:18), Jesus told his followers that whoever they condemn on earth will be condemned in heaven and whoever they forgive on earth will be forgiven in heaven. So they have gone around the world taking it upon themselves to be the judge of others, as if their judgment is God’s judgment. Considerable outright condemnation of others has followed, as if with Godly authority.
Enemies of Christ
Jesus also said that whoever is not for him is against him. We now know this to be a toxic binary. It has motivated war against all non-Christians, whom the popes declared “enemies of Christ” in the Doctrine of Discovery. If you are not a friend of Christ, you are an enemy of Christ – a toxic binary if ever there was one.
The position of Christians declaring “as we judge you, so God judges you” is foundational to Christian nationalism. A clear statement of that is Requieremiento, (Requirement: To be Read by Spanish Conquerors to Defeated Indians). Written in 1510 by the Council of Castille, it stated that what the conquerors were doing was ordained by God, and that the Church was “the Ruler and Superior of the Whole World.”
Christians went on to condemn non-Christian Indigenous for such things as how and whom they worshipped to how they had sex. They judged Indigenous spirits to be demons. They even judged the Indigenous relationship with the earth to be sinful because they were not exploiting all of the earth for human use. This posture toward the earth continues today among Christian nationalists, based on passages in Genesis where God told humans that everything is here for our use. Causing environmental damage is then no problem. The sin is to leave valuable resources not extracted.
Christian nationalism is a logical outgrowth of this posture of judging with godly authority The state, a large state, can function as the agent and executor of such judgement. While traditional conservatives favor small government, Christian nationalists favor the power and reach of large government.
What is denied here is that religion is the invention of humans. As such, humans must take responsibility for it. A part of that is that the sacred texts are human inventions. Again, human beings must take responsibility for their influence. When this is denied, we believe the words of humans are the words of God, an extremely dangerous proposition. My will is God’s will can follow. Like Genghis Khan, who convinced the religious leaders of those he vanquished that he would not have succeeded if it were not the will of God.
Bible as Rorschach
Then you add the Biblical narrative of a chosen people with a promised land that was adopted by Christians toward America. Christopher Columbus, the story goes, landed with the cross and the flag of his nation to claim ownership – Christian nationalism. Liberal Christians would prefer to believe that this is based on a misunderstanding or misuse of Bible passages. But this is not an academic exercise. Lives have always been at stake over it. The Bible is not only a human invention, reading it is like looking at a Rorschach. We can project all kinds of things onto it and believe they are there.
The bases for Christian Nationalism, and Manifest Destiny and the Doctrine of Discovery before it, were seen in the scriptures by millions of ordinary Christians, as well as religious leaders. It doesn’t get us anywhere to argue about whose interpretation is correct. The alternative is to apply moral criteria. Criticize the Bible and say it is wrong about these things, just as we do with passages that support racism. The Bible is riddled with atrocities committed by humans but attributed to God or God’s will. But criticizing the Bible just isn’t safe in most parts of this country. Proof that our society is under the thumb of the hubris that a human invention is ordained by God.
Applying a Moral Standard
If we can lighten up a bit, perhaps we can apply the moral standard Jesus taught, to know them by their fruits. When a religious belief brings harm, question it on that basis. If a Bible passage supports doing harm, question it as lacking moral authority. The passages supporting Christian nationalism in any way just do not pass the test of moral authority.
After hearing testimony that Mike Pence and many other key Republicans took their oath of office more seriously than his wish to stay in office, now he attacks them as being rigid. He does enjoy labeling people and takes pride in coming up with the analogy of “human conveyor belt” to describe Pence’s supposed rigid behavior for following the Constitution. Curiously, this analogy does imply his agreement that he was asking, no, demanding, that Pence and others violate the Constitution. In charging them with rigidity, he once again reveals that he is no ethicist.
In Practical Wisdom: The Right Way to Do the Right Thing, Barry Schwartz and Kenneth Sharpe do argue that wisdom may require deviating from standard principles under certain circumstances. But one of those circumstances is not personal gain, following unsubstantiated claims, or trying to avoid the wrath of a bully. The testimony in the January 6 hearings reveals that Pence and other Republicans Trump tried to corrupt did deliberate about whether this situation justified breaking their oath of office to uphold the Constitution. They determined rightly that it did not. The evidence they asked for was not there. This is not rigidity; it is wisdom and integrity, just what we need from public officials.
But he isn’t trying to be. He seeks infamy.
But of course, Trump is not even trying to be an ethicist. His claim is that Pence “missed his opportunity for greatness,” to do something that has never been done before. No Vice President, as President of the Senate, had ever single-handedly decided the results of a Presidential election before. Presumably usurping a valid election would have been great because Trump is great. Even if these Republicans still believed Trump was great after seeing how out of touch with his oath of office his ego had got him, one of the features of doing the right thing is that you very often lose something in the process. Al Gore is an example of that. He could have become President of the United States by pulling the stunt Trump was demanding of Pence. Pence lost out on making history. Trump wasn’t willing to lose being the most powerful person in the world. Infamy is one type of greatness, I suppose.
Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill is falsely claiming that the attack on Ukraine is needed to defend human salvation. (Daily Beast 03/22/2022) Further, in response to the head of the World Council of Churches request that he intervene to help bring peace, Kirill reminds the Council they are not to take issue with a member church, such as his. Krill refuses to be held theologically accountable for dangerous spiritual claims some hold to be toxically false. Separate from whether claims such as his are true or not is the test Jesus put: you will know them by their fruit. The fruit of Kirill’s theological assertion is death. He has no problem with that. We should.
Kirill has thus engaged his office in psychological/theological warfare with Ukraine, whose Orthodox clergy have been increasingly initiating separation from his flock. This is occurring elsewhere outside of Russia. So he is not an objective witness. To him, not only is this a just war, it is a morally necessary one. And he won’t engage in dialogue about it with religious colleagues. This suggests that the issue may really about power. But he is making it a war over human salvation.
“If we see [Ukraine] as a threat, we have the right to use force to ensure the threat is eradicated,” Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill recently preached to his church’s 90 million faithful followers. “We have entered into a conflict which has not only physical but also metaphysical significance. We are talking about human salvation, something much more important than politics….” As the patriarch sees it, Ukrainians are a threat to human salvation. (Daily Beast 03/22/2022)
A threat to human salvation? The fall is a myth. Its doctrinal offspring, original sin, is rightly contested. The other side of its coin, salvation, is likewise a contestable idea, though it rarely is. Regardless, in no way is it justification for invasion of another’s land and the slaughter of its inhabitants, not with Jericho, not with Kiev.
As Karen Armstrong points out, to love one’s enemy means to commit to protect them from harm. This goes for perceived religious enemies as well. If Krill really sees Ukraine as a spiritual threat, as a spiritual leader, he should extend his protection to Ukraine first and then go from there. Other voices need to be heard.