Free spirited or God's institutionalize slave?
I was speaking with the mother of one of my granddaughters and are exploring the contrast between Patriarchy, God, and being institutionalized by what we are told is the kingdom of God versus the spirituality of Celts, Native Americans, and others. We are exploring what that has to do with liberty and being free souls versus being institutionalized. A spiritual notion is we are free spirits having a human experience. This spirit is connected with the force of life, our planet, and all life on it, rather than the external Father, Son, and Holy Ghost of Christianity and the Roman Empire.
Might you have any thoughts on this?
Might you have any thoughts on this?
Comments (57)
Personally, I am all for exploring and drawing inspiration from any system. As long as we don't romanticize and mythologize historical fact. At the end of the day, it may be argued that all systems have good sides and bad sides.
But how do we define 'the spirituality of the Celts'?
You speak of romanticising and I wonder how much any system of belief involves this because we may fall in love with ideas and become attached to them. Also, the area between history and mythology is blurry. It is hard to know how much is which in thinking about ancient systems of belief. Is Atlantis a romantic mythology, based on the writings of Plato, or based on any reality?
I don't wish to shift from the topic of the free spirit potentiality of traditions such as the North Americans, but it is easier to get accurate knowledge because we can find these systems in the world today and in the study of anthropology. I think that it is worth looking at other cultures as much as it is important to look at the past, in order to open up the imagination to the widest scope of possible options for understanding life and the symbolic dimensions.
Sure. Nothing wrong with opening up the imagination. I am simply saying that, ideally, imagination should not be substituted for attested historical fact.
In other words, a distinction should be drawn between what we subjectively prefer a spirituality to be (or to have been) and the historical reality of what that tradition actually was based on the historical evidence.
In any case, I think it would be useful to start with a definition of "Celtic/North American spirituality".
... not 'spiritual' (i.e. supernatural)
... not 'mystical' (i.e. magical)
... not cultic (i.e. totalitarian)
... not 'religious' (i.e. theocratic, priestly pyramid-schemer)
[i]"When you believe in things [url=https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JL9eO4-aDMs]
that you don't understand[/url]
then you suffer ..."[/i]
Quite possibly, you suffer even more when you believe in things that you deliberately misunderstand ....
What you are "told" is not Christian "dogma" - assuming here that you mean the major branch of Christianity - Catholicism - - but rather the "misinterpretation" of the "non-practicing Catholic" masses.
In any case, the concept of "institutionalization" can only be applied to secular cases - for example, the institution of the church which, even though it is comprehended by a structure focused on the metaphysical, it exists on the secular plane - and not to hierocratic cases - as for example, the "Kingdom of God" or even the Trinity - for such definitions do not apply to "God".
[OBS: I do not intend, with my argumentation, to build a case for Christianity, I am referring only to your misconception that, "by having worldly structures applied in its cosmogony and theology, Christianity would have pejorative and undesirable traits compared to the Celtic and Native-American mythologies."]
Jesus didn’t come out of the experience as an all-conquering emperor.
A statue of him in every village in the Western world, worshipped at once a week, if not more. All who didn't worship at said statues in the New World summarily beaten, hanged or put to the sword by his followers.
In what way exactly did he not come out of the experience as an all-conquering emperor?
Edit - this should be in the 'God 'n that' category which I usually have switched off to avoid this very response (but it's done now).
By being reviled, rejected and crucified to death in agony. What society makes of that is another matter.
If you're claiming that Jesus was just a man (ie he didn't spend only a tiny fraction of his existence in pain, the vast majority of it ruling over all mankind), then what society makes of it is the only matter. Other than that - some bloke got crucified. So did thousands. Nothing more than a statistic.
But I don't do religious threads...have at it to your heart's content. I shan't interject again.
For example, you could say a "god" or "spirit" is more of a zeitgeist of human society, a man-made construct divine in the sense that indeed it has power over any one of us. If one group or town challenges another to battle, they are invoking this "god of war" but if they instead pray for peace they are appeasing and placating this god (or perhaps invoking an opposing god, say "god of peace") and "they" battle per se. It's a stretch but metaphors are allowed and such are still considered non-theist philosophy. Your civilization can appease or act on the instructions of a "god of wealth", which assuredly involves being prosperous, but perhaps being too prosperous would anger this god, invoking wrath. Ie. your people become too rich and everyone just starts getting lazy and before you know it doesn't know how to do anything anymore and falls like a tree to a group you outnumber 10 to 1.
On to more traditional theist beliefs, yeah. They're as real as the screen you're reading these words from. Some are good, some are tricksters, some people believe there is only one creator, others believe this not to be the case. God(s), false gods, spirits, good, bad and all things in between. Depending on who you ask of course. So as a theist, how does one know what to believe? The consensus between major religions would be prayer and humility. How can you learn if you don't listen? Why would you be helped if you don't deserve it? But again, it depends who you ask.
Quoting Athena
Free soul or not, you reside in a very physical body, burdened by physical needs that must be met and influenced, if not controlled completely by primal instinct that only becomes more insatiable and savage when said needs are unmet. Due to this, I'd kindly suggest that perhaps your argument of "either or" is somewhat of a false dichotomy. Just a smidgen.
If everyone is running around, being free, meeting their physical needs along with various, often unreasonable and decadent wants, somewhere down the line someone's liberty is going to be restricted. That is the definition of being institutionalized. Being in a confined system (life) being told what to do (instinct) with no say over the external or "overarching, unchanging, otherwise unreachable" authority that makes the rules (biology).
So, one could suggest the divine rule over all mankind (free spirits while we're in our physical bodies here) thus ensuring true liberty for all from an omniscient being is not only highly preferable than otherwise but is truly the only escape from institutionalization of not just not the body but most of all the mind. Sure if you're lucky and never have a problem in this life perhaps you won't ever realize its importance, but if that ever happens to not be the case, one would begin to appreciate the notion- and rather quickly, I presume.
In conclusion, who freakin' knows. I just do my best to try and not be a douche and hope for the best. If I'm not mistaken that's pretty much the summary of 95% of all religion anyhow.
I know that you are definitely not trying to make a case for Christianity or Catholicism, but I come from the perspective of having been socialised within these traditions. The secular and institutionalized aspects have such implications stemming from the masses and the hierarchy of the Church. It is extremely authoritarian and this applies to other mainstream religions, especially the Islamic religion.
I think that this leads to people often exploring alternatives ranging from people simply rejecting all forms of religion or spirituality, to looking for alternatives within other cultures. Of course, it is possible to end up seeing them in an idealistic way which may be so different from the experiences of the people living in the midst of such systems of ideas. But, one aspect which I believe that it is important in all free spirited approaches is the emphasis on personal experience of the numinous.
This can occur within the context of any cultural context but it often follows a more shamanic conception of experience, which is about the experiences of the lower and upper realms of consciousness, with a view to the enhanced individual experiences and insights for culture. I believe that idea systems within the Native American, Celtic and other systems adopt more of a shamanic model, with more of an emphasis on transforming this life as opposed to the way in which mainstream religions often present rigid dogmas and doctrines concerning salvation and ideas of a reward in a life after this one.
Set yourself free! If you like, want, and can...
I hear Jim Morrison talking here. "Mr Mojo Risin"...
Yes. The Celts, Native Americans, and others will rapidly kick out an impostor.
Their spirituality might seem "more true", "more natural", but they will never accept you as an equal member unless you were born and raised by them. And even then there's no guarantee.
A hodge-podge of stuff an outsider can safely dabble in, flirt with, never committing to it.
"Outsider"? You mean there are modern insiders to Celtic spirituality?
Theoretically, yes.
But my point is that one cannot choose to become a member of those cultures and spiritualities mentioned in the OP. One can read books about those cultures and spiritualities, and think "Oh, how cool, I'd like to be like that as well", but that has no bearing on whether one will actually be accepted as a member into those cultures (and some of them are gone anyway). A such, one can never properly conduct their spiritual practices or make sense of the world they do.
Pulchrum est pro fide mori!
Thank you for your concern but my take on this is more cultural/political. Some of the other post will bring that out. I really don't want this to be another God does/doesn't exist thread nor do I want it to be about Jesus. However, about the kingdom. :brow: Why are people in a democracy talking about a kingdom instead of principles of democracy and how did it feelto be a Celt or Native American before Rome and kingdom spread?
Thank you for drawing out the meaning I wanted this thread to have. You kind of hit a nerve by "that has no bearing on whether one will actually be accepted as a member into those cultures". :groan: Can we get beyond being accepted or not, a very serious Jewish, Christian, Muslim, concern and get in touch with our feelings? Mother earth gave me life and she will receive me when I die, no matter what I believe or do, and that has cultural and political ramifications. How much can we control people who do not fear being rejected or punished by a Father?
Obviously, we can't know what Ancient Celts felt. But who says that Celts did not have kingdoms?
Apparently, pre-Christian Iron Age Celtic social structure was based on class and kingship:
Celts - Wikipedia
And, of course, they practiced slavery like everyone else.
I find you so amazing because although we don't really know each other, you seem to pick up on exactly what I want to talk about and say it better than I do. That socialization and what it does to us!
"It is extremely authoritarian and this applies to other mainstream religions", :scream: And so is the military and the labour intense industry from the beginning of the industrial age, and the New World Order, and Billy Graham doing a Christmas show telling us in the US that God wants us to send our son's and daughter's into the war that should not have happened. A war supported by the Christian right. The world is gearing up to have a serious conflict over the control of world resources and trade routes. My spirit is greatly disturbed by our like of concern for the mother and all else but our material spirations. And than there is this matter of liberty. What does that feel like?
"This can occur within the context of any cultural context but it often follows a more shamanic conception of experience, which is about the experiences of the lower and upper realms of consciousness, with a view to the enhanced individual experiences and insights for culture" You touched my soul and I could not have said that better.
That is an excellent point. The old world order was family order and from there the position of the father and the mother really matters! Is the woman an equal or under the male head of the household? We used to be very sensitive to goddesses representing the life force and wisdom and Justice and Liberty. Athena is the goddess of Liberty and Justice as in the Statue of Liberty who holds a torch and a book, the symbols of enlightenment, and the Lady of Justice who holds a scale and sword. But our liberation of women has not carried the spirit of America, an icon that goes with Liberty and Justice. Under our Father in heaven, liberation has meant to be as a man, not to be as a mother! I need to shade the meaning of what I am saying. Rome is about power and glory, it is not about the mother and liberty.
The Christian Kingdom and the empire of Rome became one and the same thing and the Celts said they do not only enslave others but also themselves. That is required for power and glory and that is not what the early Greeks had nor what the Celts had. Rome gave the family power and glory but this is not liberty, and Jewish consciousness began transforming from nomads who shared the land equally, to farmers with the man in the house the representative of God, owning the family plot and slaves. The is not how the mother orders life. This is not just a dis on men, but it totally changes our understanding of life and how we organize ourselves. Do we live in fear of God organized by a hierarchy of authority and power, or do we live with the spirit of freedom and liberty and rejoicing in our individual power and glory?
Ancient Celtic Religion - Wikipedia
If so little is known about Celtic religion, I wonder how much is known about Celtic spirituality?
Because it is not that limited. Jack Cummins presents a more universal understanding of spiritualism and social organization before the Father in Heaven replaced the mother. He speaks the shaman cultures that do not separate us from the creator and life force, as the God of Abraham religions hold us separate from God and our mother earth life force. It is not just the Celts but just about everyone before Zeus swallowed Metis, Athena's mother and goddess of wisdom.
Zeus and Metis is the story of patriarchy consuming matriarchies and the story of Cain and Able is about the transition from herding to farming.
We do not know that there was no hierarchy in Celtic society or that there was no fear of deities and other supernatural forces.
Plus, an empire cannot be organized in the same way as a small nomadic tribe.
I think more complex societies tend to be more hierarchical than less complex ones. Humanity cannot revert to nomadism.
Unfortunately, there are no Ancient Celts available to confirm that this was their actual view. After all, they never put their beliefs into writing.
And I don't think Christianity holds us separate from God. It is for the individual believer to hold themselves as far or as near to God as they choose.
In any case, Christianity teaches its followers to see the Spirit of God in his Creation and states that the human body is the temple or dwelling place of God:
Your post contains so many thoughts I can not absorb them all at one time so I have attempted to file your post where it will be easy for me to find it and digest more slowly. I am not sure but I think you are associating our physical form with evil and that we need a God to liberate us from that? Please correct me if I am wrong. As I said I see a lot in your post and can not digest it all at once. For me, this is a huge field full of flowers and I want to smell all of them.
You triggered my notion of the gods being concepts and saying incantations, is the way to activate their power. Oh, oh, this is so much fun! :grin: Without a word for a concept, we can not be aware of it. Our consciousness being very dependent on words. Demeter is the goddess of motherhood and a troubled mother may call on her for help in being a better mother. We know this works, but does that mean the goddess is real? If we have the concept, how can that not be real? And in the beginning, was the word.
Also, you triggered my memory of a Hindu explanation of our physical needs being excessive and that we need to learn to control ourselves. I liked the Hindu explanation far better than the Christian one. I think the concept of evil is problematic, and for sure focusing on evil makes it powerful. So if we need to loose weight, our focus needs to be on what we want, not on what we do not want.
For your use of the word "institution". An institution is something that I understand to be external to me. I may want to be part of an institution for learning that expands my consciousness but not an institution such as a prison, that is about restricting my freedom. I think you said institutions are about restricting our freedom. An institution may require a sacrifice of liberty the benefit the institution adds to our life? The institution and sacrifice is a concept we might expand further. I think such institutions are associated with technology and advancing human potential, but we may have to sacrifice some liberty for the benefit.
We have a spirit that is never separate from us. That spirit may be happy or sad, but it is not external like a God we can reject or who can reject us. Perhaps you are saying the Holy Ghost is equal to our spirit but then why associate it with a God who is external to our being? I think we are quibbling over the meaning of words, as the Christians who killed each other over the argument of if Jesus was the son of God or God himself, was a problem of language. Some holding the trinity of God was making 3 gods out of one with others thinking all three are different aspects of the same thing.
This difference between a god and spirit is very problematic. Let's see, spirit and ghost can mean the same thing. So the term would be I am the spirit of God-made flesh?
According to the Bible, God created us in his own image, which implies that in some way we are godlike already. This seems to be the implication of some NT statements:
Being godlike by birth, humans have the potential to manifest their divinity by becoming perfect like God. This comes very close to the Platonic teaching to the effect that man must strive to become as godlike as possible, and it implies that on a higher level we are, in fact, godlike.
But I am not sure this is something that Ancient Celts would have recognized as part of their tradition. My guess would be that when moderns speak of “Celtic spirituality”, they really mean “Neo-Celtic” or simply some kind of New-Age concoction. In which case I think it would be more honest to not label it “Celtic”.
The fact of the institutionalization and totalitarianism of structured religions are its socio-political foundations of the period; religions in which the leaders did not seek to reach a conclusion that would free Man from the shackles of the secular world, but that would enslave him to a false hope of salvation in the afterlife selected by the institution of such a religion, in all aspects of the population's life.
Meanwhile, the "tribal" "shamanistic" religions of a society established not by a state but by an organization based on the traditions of a common people, usually base themselves on the aspect of freedom and "good principles" objectively, by the fact of the necessity of such concepts for such a society to be maintained.
In any case, both are concepts created for the greater ease of structuring society; the only difference is that one needs its values to be forced on society - dogma - so that the power of those belonging to the state remains indefinitely, while the other needs its principles to be practiced by free will for the general good of society itself.
"Dogmatic religions need their society, while unstructured religions need their values for their society."
Quoting Jack Cummins
This is an optimistic perception which in most cases does not occur, because - as Nietzsche would say - a population, whose values and principles were called into question, to effectively want to restructure itself with the same pillars to be questioned, needs a willpower only found in an "Übermensch", which, as we can see from studying history, and contemporary society itself, does not exist.
What happens with a society without metaphysical support, is that it, through its anguish caused by the need for "meaning", ends up being taken by the extremes of the worst aspects of the principles of other religions, ideologies, cultures, etc...
In my search for the total theorization of Egoism as a path to the "Übermensch", it became clear that humanity is not yet ready for the total annihilation of the belief in beings other than itself.
And the symptoms of this "re-culturation for lack of principles" can already be seen in the Western world. I'm sure that, in the next 200, 300 years, Islam will be the new foundation for the Western world.
Will this be harmful in the short term? Totally. Get ready for the new "Dark Ages" where the world won't make any sense.
But whether it will be harmful in the long run? No, because like Christianity itself, Islam will also eventually have its values and principles questioned, doubts that will change the world again.
As Hegel would say:
Thesis - Antithesis - Synthesis.
will forgive us Now
for wasting the dawn"[/i]
Quoting Thunderballs
:up:
Quoting 180 Proof
... take the red pill.
That is a true statement. We can know about 600 people. That means in a city with 6000 people most of them are going to be strangers. Things get more bureaucratic and less personal when there are more people. Before we reach the limit of our ability to know each other, things are handled personally. You do something I don't like, and I hit you, or maybe I tell others what you did and they will stop being friendly with you. If the conflict gets bad enough one of us leaves with his friends and establish and camp far away. At this point, there was a creator and maybe animals that were talked about in stories. There is a sense of equality with animals and likely everything has its own spirit. Nothing is separate from the life force. We can know these things through the sciences that study humans, and archeology, anthropology.
Then in Sumer and elsewhere, we see many gods. Large populations now require bureaucracies to manage the lives of people who live together as strangers. It becomes obvious one god can not do everything so there is a bureaucracy of gods. Every time a new concept is discovered, there is a new god and this becomes a big problem because the population of gods gets too big and unmanageable. This brings on the study of the gods and a search for the one true god. Eventually, we get to secular laws and people forget the gods. What is concerning to me, is the externalization of God and the move from nature to supernatural beings, and our separation from our own spiritual consciousness and authority. Relying on what a religious leader tells us is so, instead of our own spirituality, cuts us off from the spirit that is in all things and these sad people can live in fear of a revengeful, punishing, and fearsome God, and suffer a sense of being cut off from Him. The degree to which bureaucracies, including bureaucratic religions, control our lives threatens our liberty and our spiritual experience.
Only if everything else is also of the spirit. If anything is not of the spirit, there is separation. We live disconnected from mother earth and our brothers and sisters who are different from us. That god in heaven is very different from the spirit of our planet, a living organism, and life.
Are you using that to argue we are not separate from God? I do not follow that logic. If we are spiritual beings having a human experience, there is nothing to receive, except maybe knowledge of "the word", logos, the controlling force of the universe. We are not born all-knowing, but only with the capacity for learning.
Quoting Apollodorus Is this true of all animals? Then let us erect our totem poles, because I really do not believe a God made us different from the rest of the animal realm, except we have the power of language. What does it mean to be God-like? Most often I hear the indignant comment " do you think you are god?" Or "playing God." meaning we should not attempt to control what happens. If I must be perfect, then I live in fear of never being good enough and I feel cut off from all that is holy. That is painful. So the pain of separation becomes a justification for our need of God and then we must turn to a religious authority to tell us of God and explain sin to us, even though Adam and Eve were punished for eating the fruit of knowledge of good and evil. That looks like really bad logic to me.
That is an excellent question. For me, it is a feeling of being one with the universe. It is having deep respect for all life and seeing our planet and a living organism that needs to be protected. It is an appreciation for the gifts of nature, and not taking them for granted. But I can only speak for myself. I do not have the authority to speak for anyone else.
I would say the practical value is not destroying our planet and not going to war. Self-defense is probably a good idea, but we might want to start that with consideration for others and reasoning with them. Sending drones to kill unknown people is not okay. Dropping nuclear bombs is not okay. Destroying the environment of indigenous people so I can extract the mineral resources in their ground is not okay.
There are accounts of an outsider being accepted by a tribe. A tribe being a relatively small group of people who know each other and who is related to whom. Religion takes us beyond the tribal limits. However, the 3 God of Abraham religions are also tribal in nature. Including outsiders was for sure a problem for Hebrews and also Athenians. We are still struggling with that today. Like how can someone who looks different from me, be an equal member of my group? If that person can't even speak my language, how can that person be one of us? I don't think the outsider is one of us, however, there are steps to being one of us.
I can not imagine Islam and their male domination of females consuming the West. I might even pick up a gun and fight against that as women in Afghanistan have.
Exactly. Learning who we really are. Self-knowledge is the central aim of philosophy.
Quoting Athena
Being godlike is not the same as being God. Nothing to do with "controlling" anything.
Quoting Athena
1. "Perfect" as far as humanly possible. On the other hand, if we don't want to improve ourselves, what does this say about us?
2. If we must be spiritual, then we live in fear of never being spiritual (or good) enough and we feel cut off from all that is spiritual ....
It has happened in many places. And it is happening gradually. By the time Islam becomes dominant it will be too late for you to pick up your gun.
Women in Afghanistan have not fought against Islam. Those who have done so have been a minority and the results are quite clear, IMO.
I don't believe that in our lifetime an event as big as a "war" of the proportions you refer to - religious wars - will happen.
It is very likely that we will see the total distortion and degradation of our Western society by the end of the century - principally in Europe and in on the USA -.
It only remains for us to archive the knowledge that will eventually be lost again, and warn the blighted masses of their wrongdoings so that in the end, we can become the saints of a new era.
Indeed...
If it does happen, it will be in places like Africa, Mid East, India, Indonesia.
In the West Islam is far more likely to spread as it has done for decades - through immigration, high birth-rates, and conversions. Too gradual and peaceful for non-Muslims to feel motivated to put up resistance ....
Kind of like in the US don't you think? Some states still have not ratified the Equal Rights Amendment. The Bible does say the man is to be head of household. Like Islam is the same religion as Christianity and Judaism. Just like Mormons and Jehova Witnesses and Southern Baptist are the same religion but from slightly different perspectives. My X husband and my friend's husbands were as controlling as the males in Afghanistan and Women's Liberation has made a big difference. I think we know what those women are fighting against because we had to fight the fight.
They're dead and gone, so they're fair game for anyone who wants to romanticize them.
Rather rude, in my opinion.
Quoting Apollodorus
And Turkish soap operas! They are promoting Islam lite, offering a point of contact between Western culture (soap operas depicting romance, personal and family tribulations) and Muslim culture (those tribulations are effectively addressed within the Muslim religious context, wjhich can nevertheless be made to appear secular enough).
To suck up to whatever New Age guru currently holds our fancy.
When I point out the issue of membership in a religious/spiritual community, I do this for the following reason:
In order for a person to properly conduct the religious/spiritual practices of a religion and to attain its goal, the person must be at least the member of said religion's epistemic community. Typically, this means also being physically a member of said community (with all the socio-economic obligations that come with that).
Otherwise, the person just dabbles on in a religion/spirituality, never attaining what he was supposed to attain (and possibly wasting a lot of time and resources).
The Celts are gone, so one cannot become a member of their epistemic community; and even if they would still exist, it's questionable whether they would see outsiders as fit to practice their religion/spirituality.
The situation with the Native Americans (what is left of them) is similar as far as outsiders are concerned.
It's tempting to read about the spiritual beliefs of this or that religion/spirituality, such as the Native Americans, and to think that one could practice those beliefs. It is not clear that one can meaningfully do so, unless one is actually a member of theirs.
Quoting Athena
How is "getting in touch with your feelings" going to help with anything?
And "getting in touch with your feelings" according to whose idea of "getting in touch with your feelings"?
That's your belief, one certainly not shared by many others.
Eh?
Why should this be the relevant dichotomy?
I truly like what you said. Let us work with "Typically, this means also being physically a member of said community (with all the socio-economic obligations that come with that)".
We have one planet. Science has caught up with the notion that of Gia, and the planet being a living organism, and knowing we are killing the organs of this organism we call earth. What is more sacred than living in harmony with the planet that gives us life?
Next point- logos, reason is the controlling force of the universe.
The 10 tribes that agreed to become one nation were the Sioux, Mississippian, Apache, Navajo, Creek, Choctaw, Seminole, Chickasaw, Cherokee and the Iroquois. The Shoshone and Anishinaabe joined the federation two years later. These people carry the belief that a man gave them the way of peace, that is our human capacity for reason. Democracy is rule by reason if people understand that or not. It was understood by Greeks and the Native Americans. It is democracy that gave us peace, not religion!
Can we put that together with what you said binds us as a community? We take from the earth and we carry an obligation to our earth and all life on the earth. We achieve agreements and have peace through reason.
Quoting baker
That is our sacred duty as indigenous people have understood it since the beginning of time.
No idea was ever shared by many until it was communicated to others. The tribes did not live in peace, until a man gave them with the idea that peace is possible through reason. Ideas are like safety pins. When people understand the benefit of one, everyone wants it. When there is a problem, that is a lack of good reasoning. Our sacred duty at this time is not only to our earth and all life, but also to learn all we can from the geologists, archeologists, and related sciences and to rethink what we believe is true so that we might know truth. We are at a crossroads. Either we enter a New Age, a time of high tech and peace and the end of tyranny, or we self-destruct. We need philosophy to make that transition.
Because it is the difference between the police state we have become or having the democracy we think we have. There are two ways to have social order, authority over the people or culture. Until 1958 the priority purpose of education in the US was education for good moral judgment and good citizenship. The 1950 National Defense Education Act ended that and replaced it with education for the Military-Industrial complex which is what we defended our democracy against in two world wars. Now a guard stands at the door of our hospital and we can not enter without the covid protocol and the question "are you carrying a weapon" with a security guard standing there in case you are stupid enough to say you are carrying a weapon. This came about when we called in the National Gaurd to help our overwhelmed hospital. Years ago, our Social Security office gained a permanent armed security guard. Just about any place I go, there are armed security guards and this is not the reality I grew up with. We are relying on authority for social order, not culture.
What is the psychology or reasoning that leads people to think a culture based around the security/subversion conflict is even appealing? Obviously if we lack robust security measures, civilization will become almost apocalyptic, and if we are unwilling to maintain freedoms that make subversion of even conscientious types possible, social and probably technological progress will almost come to a standstill, but why does this dynamic even exist in the first place? As an individual I have no need for security measures nor subversion, so why does this clash dominate social planning? Is it perpetuated by the fact that no one senses the license to discuss it in honest ways? It seems like something about human history or herd instinct perhaps is weighing down the enlightened, empowered present with paranoia and neuroses that have no basis in any realistic picture of cause and consequence.
I think "secular" is the key word. Islam has always been the sweetheart of the Left who see Islam as a form of atheism (invisible god, no religious images, etc.) that will rid the world of Christianity for them. Hence their constant appeasement of Islam.
It reminds one of Churchill's comment about appeasing the enemy: