Is Win-at-All Costs Politics the New Religion of the Right?

Free AI web copilot to create summaries, insights and extended knowledge, download it at here

1538

Abstract

mentioned in opening this article. Here’s the passage, from Chapter XXXI, page 544 in my version, called Christendom and the Crusades:Its priests and bishops were more and more men moulded to creeds and dogmas and set procedures; by the time they became cardinals or popes, they were usually oldish men, habituated to a politic struggle for immediate ends and no longer capable of worldwide views. They no longer wanted to see the Kingdom of God established in the hearts of men — they had forgotten about that; they wanted to see the power of the church, which was their own power, dominating men. They were prepared to bargain even with the hates and fears and lusts in men’s hearts to ensure that power. And it was just because many of them probably doubted secretly the entire soundness of their vast and elaborate doctrinal fabric that they would brook no discussion of it. They were intolerant of questions or dissent, not because they were sure of their faith, but because they were not. They wanted conformity for reasons of policy.Now, in this chapter Wells was discussing the fact and reasons behind the fact that the church (by which he meant the Christian church, and specifically Roman Catholicism) had failed to achieve St. Augustine’s vision, expressed in his seminal tome called The City of God. The period he is discussing is the run-up to the great Crusading era that was to come.But, with the recent commentary on politics and religion rattling ar

Options

ound in my head, when I read this section, it gave me pause for thought. As written, does it not accurately describe the very puzzling attitude of white evangelicals since Donald Trump? These folks used to insist on truth, compassion, selfless service, Christian conduct according to Holy Writ and the Ten Commandments. What — in God’s name — happened?I realized if we replace references to religion and religious leaders with politics and political leaders, there is quite an interesting effect, thusly: Its Representatives and Senators were more and more men moulded to creeds and dogmas and procedures; by the time they became committee chairs, they were usually oldish men, habituated to a politic struggle for immediate ends and no longer capable of worldwide views. They were prepared to bargain, even with hates and fears and lusts in men’s hearts to ensure that power. And it was just because many of them probably doubted secretly of the entire soundness of their vast and elaborate doctrinal fabric that they would brook no discussion of it.Does that not describe our current Legislative Branch, and in particular the GOP in Congress, very well? Can you think of any members of Congress who have appeared willing to bargain, even with hates and fears and lusts, all to stay in power? I can think of several of them, and I am sad to perceive they all seem to be hand-in-glove with the religious right, the white evangelicals who seem to have forgotten their own faith.</article></body>

Is Win-at-All-Costs Politics The New Religion of the Right?

Recently I’ve been seeing some commentary about how the Far Right has traded their religion (with the blessing of white evangelicals) for the power they see and desire in politics in the Trump era. I don’t profess to understand it all, but I’m currently re-reading an old favorite work: The Outline of History by H. G. Wells. Yes, the author of The Time Machine and The Invisible Man also penned a popular work on history — way back in the day.

It was originally published in 1920 and was revised and re-published several times, the last one being in 1956, to take in the end of WWII. As expected, there are some sections that suffer from being out of date, especially where paleontology, archaeology, and anthropology have had more to say on various things since 1956. Yet, it is a remarkable work, and being an outline is not overly rigorous or impossible to read. In fact, it’s quite an enjoyable read.

Anyway, in my re-read, just the other day I ran across the following passage, and it resonated considering the recent commentary I mentioned in opening this article. Here’s the passage, from Chapter XXXI, page 544 in my version, called Christendom and the Crusades:

Its priests and bishops were more and more men moulded to creeds and dogmas and set procedures; by the time they became cardinals or popes, they were usually oldish men, habituated to a politic struggle for immediate ends and no longer capable of worldwide views. They no longer wanted to see the Kingdom of God established in the hearts of men — they had forgotten about that; they wanted to see the power of the church, which was their own power, dominating men. They were prepared to bargain even with the hates and fears and lusts in men’s hearts to ensure that power. And it was just because many of them probably doubted secretly the entire soundness of their vast and elaborate doctrinal fabric that they would brook no discussion of it. They were intolerant of questions or dissent, not because they were sure of their faith, but because they were not. They wanted conformity for reasons of policy.

Now, in this chapter Wells was discussing the fact and reasons behind the fact that the church (by which he meant the Christian church, and specifically Roman Catholicism) had failed to achieve St. Augustine’s vision, expressed in his seminal tome called The City of God. The period he is discussing is the run-up to the great Crusading era that was to come.

But, with the recent commentary on politics and religion rattling around in my head, when I read this section, it gave me pause for thought. As written, does it not accurately describe the very puzzling attitude of white evangelicals since Donald Trump? These folks used to insist on truth, compassion, selfless service, Christian conduct according to Holy Writ and the Ten Commandments. What — in God’s name — happened?

I realized if we replace references to religion and religious leaders with politics and political leaders, there is quite an interesting effect, thusly: Its Representatives and Senators were more and more men moulded to creeds and dogmas and procedures; by the time they became committee chairs, they were usually oldish men, habituated to a politic struggle for immediate ends and no longer capable of worldwide views. They were prepared to bargain, even with hates and fears and lusts in men’s hearts to ensure that power. And it was just because many of them probably doubted secretly of the entire soundness of their vast and elaborate doctrinal fabric that they would brook no discussion of it.

Does that not describe our current Legislative Branch, and in particular the GOP in Congress, very well? Can you think of any members of Congress who have appeared willing to bargain, even with hates and fears and lusts, all to stay in power? I can think of several of them, and I am sad to perceive they all seem to be hand-in-glove with the religious right, the white evangelicals who seem to have forgotten their own faith.