In a book talked about a few months ago, "How the West Really Lost God" by Mary Eberstadt, the thesis was this: that family and religion went hand in hand. In other words, if one wants more intact families, one should support religious observance, and vice versa. If one wants less of one, then attack the other. In this, the relationship was made clear, at least for the Western-influenced (formerly) Christian nations.
Last week, a comprehensive study came out from a group of sociologists from prestigious institutions such as Harvard and Stanford concerning poverty. I did not read the report, but rather the summation that was made of it in the newspaper. In it, the reporter quotes one of the authors as saying, "we were surprised; we did not expect to get these results." The results were unequivocal: a two-parent family, or the absence of one, were far and away the most important factors in determining poverty rates and later rates of upward mobility.
With such results, the role of government and society for improving the overall population is clear: increase the likelihood of intact families; and, following Eberstadt's thesis, one of the primary - if not mandatory - ways of doing that is to promote religious practice. Is that what American and European societies are doing?
Clearly they are not. Why this is so is complex - as complex as Eberstadt's lengthy book - but, in America's case, do we see even a hint of promotion among the academic and political elite? It is present, but only in marginalized and sometimes ridiculous individuals - Duck Dynasty comes to mind, as do some politicians considered too extreme for the national stage. My own inside knowledge of academia has shown me that the mainstream in most prestigious universities not only do NOT offer some encouragement for family and religion, but are downright hostile to both. Their attitudes towards traditional institutions have been graphically reflected in the novel, "A Handmaiden's Tale," a Reagan era book that shows, from an academic point of view, what a religiously re-awakened America would look like. It is a nightmare of racism, environmental destruction and women's subjugation. The heroes are freedom fighters of the Che Guevara type - wild, poor, dedicated. By the middle of the book, if one still supports the dominant religious elite, one must certainly be a Nazi fascist.
It is, of course, propaganda, but it correctly reflects the view of America's power elite. They draw on the hypocrisy of the "Leave It to Beaver" family stereotype as well as the religious conman, Elmer Gantry - not to mention pedophile priests. We do work in stereotypes, but another balancing one is forgotten - that of the godless, government-run society. On this, Orwell did the reverse of the "Handmaiden" with "1984," which was created after his overwhelming disappointment with Communism during the Stalinist era, which the elite have all but ignored. In fact, the greatest monsters, by far, of the last one hundred years have come from totalitarian states antithetical to the autonomy of the family and to religion (Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot). In comparison, the ravishings of theocracies, including the Inquisition and the current assortment of Muslim radicals, pale to nothing in comparison.
But I write not to get into an argument over what forms of government have been the biggest threats to the world - but rather to point out the central issue of family and religion. They, both, are essential for free, democratic societies, for without one we eventually lose much of the other - and without family, we must come to rely on government, which can never, ever provide the personal care that an intact family can. We do not want a theocracy, either...but a practical approach to this by our government easily prevents such an occurrence. That is to say, the governmental policy can avoid the dark side of religious adherence while promoting the good side - and yet, it doesn't. In effect, it has given in to the ideals of the elites who mock Beaver and the Church lady, and not just for laughs - but, in fact, to keep government away from any family or religious-based initiatives under the false banner of "separation of church and state." Again, it is too complex a thing to ask 'why' in this blog - but only to see that it is happening. In an era where we have learned to be respectful of diverse cultures and religions - unlike in the nightmare world of the Christian right in "Handmaiden" - there seems to be no practical excuse for the avoidance our elites of the truth of the issue ; that for a better society, we should promote religion (any mainstream or canonically non-violent religion) and the two-parent family.
But there is something more: religion to a sociologist is a sociological thing; but it is much more than that. And even though all religions (and I include shamanism and animism in the category of religion) are partial truths, they all, at the core, point to a greater truth - about why we are here and what we should do about it. It is, for many people, the only thing in their lives that might tear away the cloth of socio-economic blinders, if only for a while. Rather than being a palliative for a suffering society, religion offers the ways and means to get beyond ourselves - and into the meaning of life itself. In the end , nothing is more important for an individual, and for society at large, for when society loses its grander vision, there is only decay - until something else comes along to provide a greater vision. And the 20th century saw more than enough of these "something else's." FK
Last week, a comprehensive study came out from a group of sociologists from prestigious institutions such as Harvard and Stanford concerning poverty. I did not read the report, but rather the summation that was made of it in the newspaper. In it, the reporter quotes one of the authors as saying, "we were surprised; we did not expect to get these results." The results were unequivocal: a two-parent family, or the absence of one, were far and away the most important factors in determining poverty rates and later rates of upward mobility.
With such results, the role of government and society for improving the overall population is clear: increase the likelihood of intact families; and, following Eberstadt's thesis, one of the primary - if not mandatory - ways of doing that is to promote religious practice. Is that what American and European societies are doing?
Clearly they are not. Why this is so is complex - as complex as Eberstadt's lengthy book - but, in America's case, do we see even a hint of promotion among the academic and political elite? It is present, but only in marginalized and sometimes ridiculous individuals - Duck Dynasty comes to mind, as do some politicians considered too extreme for the national stage. My own inside knowledge of academia has shown me that the mainstream in most prestigious universities not only do NOT offer some encouragement for family and religion, but are downright hostile to both. Their attitudes towards traditional institutions have been graphically reflected in the novel, "A Handmaiden's Tale," a Reagan era book that shows, from an academic point of view, what a religiously re-awakened America would look like. It is a nightmare of racism, environmental destruction and women's subjugation. The heroes are freedom fighters of the Che Guevara type - wild, poor, dedicated. By the middle of the book, if one still supports the dominant religious elite, one must certainly be a Nazi fascist.
It is, of course, propaganda, but it correctly reflects the view of America's power elite. They draw on the hypocrisy of the "Leave It to Beaver" family stereotype as well as the religious conman, Elmer Gantry - not to mention pedophile priests. We do work in stereotypes, but another balancing one is forgotten - that of the godless, government-run society. On this, Orwell did the reverse of the "Handmaiden" with "1984," which was created after his overwhelming disappointment with Communism during the Stalinist era, which the elite have all but ignored. In fact, the greatest monsters, by far, of the last one hundred years have come from totalitarian states antithetical to the autonomy of the family and to religion (Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot). In comparison, the ravishings of theocracies, including the Inquisition and the current assortment of Muslim radicals, pale to nothing in comparison.
But I write not to get into an argument over what forms of government have been the biggest threats to the world - but rather to point out the central issue of family and religion. They, both, are essential for free, democratic societies, for without one we eventually lose much of the other - and without family, we must come to rely on government, which can never, ever provide the personal care that an intact family can. We do not want a theocracy, either...but a practical approach to this by our government easily prevents such an occurrence. That is to say, the governmental policy can avoid the dark side of religious adherence while promoting the good side - and yet, it doesn't. In effect, it has given in to the ideals of the elites who mock Beaver and the Church lady, and not just for laughs - but, in fact, to keep government away from any family or religious-based initiatives under the false banner of "separation of church and state." Again, it is too complex a thing to ask 'why' in this blog - but only to see that it is happening. In an era where we have learned to be respectful of diverse cultures and religions - unlike in the nightmare world of the Christian right in "Handmaiden" - there seems to be no practical excuse for the avoidance our elites of the truth of the issue ; that for a better society, we should promote religion (any mainstream or canonically non-violent religion) and the two-parent family.
But there is something more: religion to a sociologist is a sociological thing; but it is much more than that. And even though all religions (and I include shamanism and animism in the category of religion) are partial truths, they all, at the core, point to a greater truth - about why we are here and what we should do about it. It is, for many people, the only thing in their lives that might tear away the cloth of socio-economic blinders, if only for a while. Rather than being a palliative for a suffering society, religion offers the ways and means to get beyond ourselves - and into the meaning of life itself. In the end , nothing is more important for an individual, and for society at large, for when society loses its grander vision, there is only decay - until something else comes along to provide a greater vision. And the 20th century saw more than enough of these "something else's." FK
RSS Feed