Wednesday, November 30, 2011

Three-legged Stool Pigeons

Joseph Campbell was a highly-acclaimed anthropologist, scholar and author, but perhaps his greatest gift was his clear vision into the stories we tell ourselves.  He understood better than most of his contemporaries a profound idea that is now commonplace thought:  everything human is story-based.  Everything.  As important as the blood that pumps continuously throughout our bodies, unceasing story-telling/crafting abounds in our minds.  Even during most sleep time. Only those who practice meditation can find respite from the incessant narration.

Much of the American story is based on three entangled, pervasive and enduring myths.  They are as mutually supportive as are the three legs of a stool.  Take out any one and the whole thing collapses. One does not trump the other, but is equally co-dependent with the others.

These three component pieces, Religion, Nationalism (Extreme Patriotism or Jingoism) and Militarism, necessarily have similar attributes and symbolic references:.  The term "Religion" is generally taken to mean "Church", and that's most often meant to be Protestant Christianity.  Although pluralism is a founding principle (according to Thomas Paine), the reality in America is that every other type of religious or spiritual pursuit is suspect, at least.  Religion demands respect for rules, artifacts or trappings, formality or regimentation, and a clear hierarchy of authority.  The same is true for Nationalism and Militarism.

Each of these three are contrivances and tools of suppression, if not oppression.  I am not necessarily saying God is contrived, only the human institutions that purport a belief in God.  Occasionally you can find an SUV or pick-up truck simultaneously displaying symbols of all three myths.  For example a fish symbol, a flag bumper sticker and an NRA decal.  Or, all-inclusive bumper stickers, such as, "God Bless Our Troops" on a background of red, white and blue.

These are extremely damaging myths that have been used to justify great violence when they're held on blind faith and, therefore, without examination.  In a nutshell, the tangled logic goes something like this: God favors with life and liberty those who, in his Name, take from others life and liberty.  America is specially favored by God (Exceptionalism), because we are so good at taking from others and it's a dereliction of duty to not impose His will on others.  God and American imperialism, taken together, justify the use of any means necessary to accomplish the Mission.  All three myths use the word mission those missions are usually justified in circular fashion with reference to the others.

Perhaps the key component of these three myths, which also holds together most social groups, is "Us and Them".  Every group necessarily defines itself in a closed set of beliefs and characteristics, and any outsider is to be ignored, or ostracized, or worse.  In fact, the pre-eminent religions and nations have arrived at their dominant status by killing-off "Them", simply because they are not "Us".   Groups who have a common belief of tolerance invariably meet up with, and are conquered by, groups with less tolerance.  The most intolerant naturally rise in power, by Darwinian principle.

There are small, independent-minded groups who actually are skeptical of group-think for this reason. (Quakers might be one example.)  These individuals tend toward compassion toward all, are neutral in party politics and are largely agnostic in their beliefs.  They are naturally ostracized by every other established group because they are a perceived threat.  The irony of this is that they actually behave most in accordance with the espoused beliefs of the major religions.  They aren't actually a threat and yet some of these gentle souls are often more brutally oppressed than any group's actual, self-professed enemies.

Is any of this making sense yet?   If so, please let me know how this is making sense.

Our society is responsible for some great accomplishments and some great crimes.  We champion the causes that ultimately lead to our own remorse and we can't seem to see far enough back in history to avoid the same trouble in the future.  I'm all for living in the present, but not if it's based on self-delusion.  This is the main reason for the name of this blog:  ('Funny that we chose an eagle for a symbol, because) we are sheep.  Although, I would never say that out loud in front of real sheep - I can imagine them humming and looking at their hooves, shuffling to the far side of the barn if I came in and tried to make the comparison.

a quick (sinful) thought

If cookies and candy were health foods, would we all be in tip top shape, or would we be sneaking out of the house to munch on carrots when no one was looking?

The point of the question is to highlight a quirk of human nature:  if we don't sin, is it because we choose not to, or is it because we don't really have the opportunity?  And if we don't have the opportunity at hand, won't we invent one in short order?  This is the point where most of us take a step back and reflexively defend our virtue to ourselves.  "No, not me; I'm noble and can abstain", we say with self-righteousness and pride, which is another kind of sin according to some. If we are naturally compelled to sin, why and what exactly is that?

Of course, sin has been debated by all manner of theologians and philosophers who have made a deep study of the subject.  Presumably one would like to see his own vices included on the list that is acceptable to the Lord; the other guy's sin is the abomination.  Sin, along with the other tenets of religion, is as necessary to the whole construct as are acts of worship, grace, forgiveness, etc.

In the simplest, objective sense, sin is a proscribed activity or state of being, as defined by a given, self-distinguishing (discriminatory) group.  The intentions behind the concept are that sin is used to clear-up the boundary between"us" and "them", and to keep the membership in line.  These are the practical reasons, but like so many of our odd behaviors and ideas, the list of sins is attributed to Divine Authorship.  I'm going on record here by saying the Creator of everything in the known and unknown universe doesn't give a fig if you eat meat on Fridays.  Besides, isn't that a special day of thanks, as in,"Thank God it's Friday"?  Why not celebrate it with a feast of fatted calf?

The list of sins for fundamentalist Christians used to be longer, but God is relaxing a little on all those abominations - Nice Guy that he is.  (I don't know if Allah is all that laid back with his flock.)  At one time you didn't want the Almighty catching you wearing garments woven of mixed fibers.  When you attended a public stoning, or went to collect taxes from the poor, you had better be wearing pure linen or pure wool so God would smile on you. (Deut.22:11) Also, you couldn't eat rabbit, or shrimp or flying insects, they were unclean.  (I still abstain from eating flying insects.)  Over the centuries, these have somehow become clean. If only he would relax on some of the other sins, those that are currently dearest to our hearts.

We find ourselves in possession of a magnificent mind that can turn its attention to God, and to showing compassion and taking care of others.  Or it can turn in myriad other directions.  These are distractions, at least, from the most important human business and most of these are on some list of sins.  Anything that would interrupt the connection to God or to higher callings is a sin, so naturally we're all guilty as charged - and there's not much point in drawing too many distinctions.  Let God do the judging.

Well, from one sinner to another...carry on.


Self-righteousness is the inevitable fruit of simple moral judgments.
Reinhold Niebuhr