Home

Why Subscribe ?

Popularise CC

Join News Letter

Editor's Picks

Press Releases

Action Alert

Feed Burner

Read CC In Your
Own Language

Bradley Manning

India Burning

Mumbai Terror

Financial Crisis

Iraq

AfPak War

Peak Oil

Globalisation

Localism

Alternative Energy

Climate Change

US Imperialism

US Elections

Palestine

Latin America

Communalism

Gender/Feminism

Dalit

Humanrights

Economy

India-pakistan

Kashmir

Environment

Book Review

Gujarat Pogrom

Kandhamal Violence

WSF

Arts/Culture

India Elections

Archives

Links

Submission Policy

About CC

Disclaimer

Fair Use Notice

Contact Us

Search Our Archive

Subscribe To Our
News Letter



Our Site

Web

Name: E-mail:

 

Printer Friendly Version

Too Much Of A Good Thing: A Warped History

By Ivan Hentschel

24 August, 2010
Countercurrents.org

Some of the observations made here may ring out as oversimplifications, but
given the current tendency of those in the media and the public eye to
reduce nearly every idea or event of any significance down to a cute
one-liner or catch phrase, perhaps this piece will be “trendy” (with no
apologies to Fox News…but perhaps some to the Daily Show).
Continuing to muscle out something as mundane as, say, humanitarianism, the
two most popular (and gossipy) topics of the day remain religion and
politics. And even if we dare venture into humanitarianism, unheralded
generosity or even philanthropy, questions always arise even there about
the political or the religious “implications”, as regards perceived morality
(or immorality), ethics and the long term consequences for one religious
movement/sect/clique or another, or for some particular political figure.
Religion and politics are both deeply entwined pulse-raisers in the
irrational discussions about such topics as the proposed islamic cultural
center in New York, or the stoning and mutilations (of “disobedients”)
sanctioned by the Taliban in central Asian/middle eastern countries, where
they (it? What else do you call the Taliban?) enjoys either some favor or
tolerance. Two more examples of this conjoined conundrum might be the fight
for Harry Reid’s political seat, based up the dust-ups over archaic,
religiously-tinged statements made by Sharon Angle (no angel, herself), and
the continuing shadow dangling precipitously over the presidency of Barack
Obama, per the debate over whether he is Christian or not (like it matters?
Do you care? I don’t). You might also want to consider the insidious
disconnect between “In God We Trust” and the imperialistic attitude of the
United States (in guns we trust), or the political ramifications that are
caught up in whether the” Islamic” nation of Saudi Arabia will “allow” U.S,
troops to travel through and live temporarily in their country, given the
Christian tenets, proselytizing and Bible thumping they bring along. And
please let us not forget “The Family”, a deeply sectarian, secretive branch
of fundamental Christianity, which owns and runs a townhouse “sanctuary” for
U.S. senate and congressional members, many of whom have been involved in
reported sex scandals, bribe taking and perhaps even worse moral
abrogations. These folks have double standards for their double standards.
Enough said. This becomes tedious, after awhile.

[The question of “morality” begs a comment, here. Religion has infused
politics with the discussion of morality vs. immorality, making it a
sometimes vocal focal point, and has circumvented any discussion of ethical
behavior. In fact it ignores ethics, altogether. What is at issue in cases
like the conduct of members of “The Family” is not so much a matter of
morality or immorality, but a lack of morality. For these “true believers,
“amorality” is the order of the day. What may be construed as “religiously
moral”, depending upon your selective perception, may not be ethically
“right” or humanly proper. Sectarian-based, religiously inspired
interpretations have made ethical misconduct and political malfeasance
possible, acceptable and even “righteous”. It can be the basis for
justifying adultery, fraud, dishonesty and genocide and was use for
justifying the invasion of Iraq. The absence of any morality is a far worse
human condition than occasional pangs of immorality.]

And then there is the never-ending Israeli-Palestinian feud, which is
ostensibly about holy land and one true God (which one now, really?) but is
really about real estate… which is really about political power… and about
which the “christian nation” of the United States is constantly attempting
to intervene, because of our judaic allegiances (and oil) but which beyond
religion are backed up with the largest standing arsenal in the middle East,
including nukes????

Note: On August 21, Netanyahu announced that the direct peace talks (just
announced by Secretary of State Clinton, would be held as planned, only if
everyone heeded his caveat that Israel’s’ rights and sovereignty were
recognized. He can say that because an arsenal. Arse-anal? Is this all about
religion, real estate or politics? Where is Solomon when we need him? The
“Peace Talks” are never about peace.

Another note: I have made every effort, throughout this piece, NOT to
capaitalize christian, christianity, muslim,islam, jew or judaic, because,
over the centuries, all of these movements have forfeited their right to be
capitalized, by marginalizing their own ethics and behaviors.
But I wander (in the desert of non-ideas) and digress (into the morass of
duplicity of thought).

Let’s start with the religion topic, though, and with the myopic nature of
its’ haughty and arrogant selective interpretations and perceptions,
(“selective perception”, by the way, is the human capacity to see things
they you want them to be, and not necessarily they way they actually are)
and how religion has taken the notion of “a good thing” and turned it in
upon itself, in order to garner and amass money, real estate and power.
Again, being overly simplistic, monotheism (the oldest form with which we
are all most familiar is judaism) was a spiritual and emotional response to
the vagaries and multiple obeisances required by polytheism. It focused
thought, tidied up loose theological and deification issues, attempted to
eliminate some philosophical contradictions and gave some of those thirsting
for answers to the questions of “why?” a strong rallying point. If you
believe in the legend, it got the enslaved Jews out of Egypt (an
anti-pyramid scheme, if you will) and coalesced at least one group of nomads
into a cohesive community that began to look out for one another in useful
and sometimes even egalitarian fashion. But, through the desire to organize,
structurize (make the most of a good thing?) and formalize, this “movement”,
over time, became controversial, top-heavy, troublesome, beset by laws and
ritual, adorned with garments, vestiges and decoration, and built physical
monuments to its’ own narrow and proscriptive perception of “human
salvation”. It became, some might say, oligarchic (a true pyramid scheme,
this time). It became, too much of a good thing. And if, as a member, you
chose not to behave according to the guidelines of the faithful, you ran
the risk of being spurned, shunned (The Amish tried this a few centuries
later), cut off from marriage possibilities and debilitated economically
because of severely curtailed commerce (money, real estate, politics and
power, again). In order to get just the bare essentials of the “good thing”,
you had to buy off on “too much of a good thing”, which was rapidly, in the
eyes of many, becoming not one…so to speak. And eventually, there were, and
still remain, myriad (pyramid) versions and multitudinous authoritative
interpretations of just exactly what constitutes “too much of a good thing”,
and which interpretation and manifestation is “more pure”. But that gets
into sectarianism, denominationalism and exactly which form of “too much of
a good thing” is better than the other guy’s. Ah, blessed duplicity.
Eventually this incongruence got to be just too much for many of those who
were brazen enough to think outside the box (The Ark of the Covenant?) and
they began rebelling. One enduring offshoot (among many) was christianity.
It began as a protest movement (more or less) against the rigidity of the
larger jewish monolith of ecclesiastical mumbo-jumbo, and sought to return
(radicalize) monotheism through the (semi-pagan) creation of a god incarnate
(that would be Jesus, if you are following me). While later adopting three
heads, embracing adaptations of assorted pagan mythologies, creating new
myths of its’ own and very shortly adopting ritual, decoration, vestments
and physical monuments, it became even larger and more unwieldy than judaic
monotheism. Perhaps this was in large part because it was not really
monotheistic, anymore. We call this behemoth the catholic church. (In time
it was co-opted by the Roman Empire as a political tool and collection
agency, dressed in religious shepherd’s clothing)

Today “it” owns more souls and more real estate and has more collective
political clout than even Republicans or tea partiers. “It” even has an
infallible leader. Despite its’ claims about humanitarianism, generosity,
and human kindness, the meek inheriting the earth, and so on, it is an
organization pre-occupied with making sure that everyone gets “too much of a
good thing” and donates cash. But only, please observe, done in precisely
the exact form and ritual proscription that any particular variation on the
original theme (within the parameter s of its selective perception…you still
with me, here?) will permit. “It” has sanctioned war, genocide,
inquisitions, become wealthy through dark and foreboding relationships with
autocrats, bureaucrats, tyrants, murderers, dictators , ideological fanatics
and hateful iconoclasts of the worst kind. It is an oligarchy of sinister
proportions almost beyond comprehension, and certainly, something a universe
away in thought and practice from the original notion of the any early
monotheists. It is much too much of a good thing. And when you reek of
goodness, you stink.

By the time that much of central Europe was beginning to awaken to the fact
that the world was expanding and moving on, rediscovering math, astronomy
and sanitary practices, the protestant reformation (really just a schism)
took place and this opened the door for even more denominationalism. This
insurgency in new “good things” received its’ most ardent boost from the
founding of the new United States, and the constitutional principal of
freedom of religion (how do think we got Seventh Day Adventists and
Mormons?). With (by some estimates) more than 1600 protestant denominations
around the world, though lacking the monetary and real estate clout of the
catholic church, this group wields an enormous amount of psychological clout
by inventing new definitions of arbitrary morality, spreading a gospel of
guilt, and practicing a version of modified monotheism that might best be
described as “Jesusology”. (This is like “mythology”, but with “god”
attached to its backside.)The “good news” of the larger movement quickly
became the universal “bad news” of far too many expressions of having too
much of a good thing. Stinking goodness returns.

On the more liberal interpretive side, this meant that it was “OK” to use
birth control and smoke cigarettes but you can’t get an abortion even if you
are raped; it is OK to build a beer distribution warehouse next to an
Episcopalian Church, but you can’t have a strip club next to a private
Baptist high school; “thou shalt not kill”, unless it is an abortion doctor;
freedom of religion is guaranteed by the constitution but you cannot build
an islamic cultural center (where people might pray to the one true god who
may not be yours) five blocks down the street from a site where 17 crazy
radical jihadists demolished two office towers; all men are created equal[in
the eyes of god] except for poor people, stupid people, black people,
muslims, certain jews, most pagan Africans and Zoroastrians. And we should
been horrified that the Taliban would stone to death adulterers, but members
of congress who are adulterers are re-elected and it is OK to deny health to
the poor and the elderly. Or you can play with rattlesnakes and have
multiple wives, but you cannot blaspheme. And you can build a liquor store,
anywhere. Go figure.

Would you like to get into the discussion of homophobia and homosexual
protestant pastors who travel with transvestites? I didn’t think so.

The islamic faith, on its’ face another monotheism , born say many of an
unholy co-mingling of the thought of the two first great monotheisms, and
fleshed out by a blind, illiterate self-proclaimed prophet, mixes those two
earlier thought lines, introduces new cultural proclivities and
prohibitions, rules, addendums and restrictions, and opens the door to
innumerable variations and shades of interpretation (denominationalism).
Today you can pick from primitive, radical, moderate or extreme (Sharia)
versions. Islam also makes wild promises about after-lives (to promote
martyrdom) and says one thing (depending upon which sect you listen to) and
then practices another (very much like their christian brothers and
sisters...except that most muslims hold sisters in lower regard than camels
and donkeys). It might be fair to say that almost no one, even the majority
of various muslims, understand the scope of the wide-ranging views held by
assorted members of this faith, and certainly western christians understand
even less. Some jews seem to understand their muslim brothers and vice-versa
(they are, after all kissing cousins and both claim to know Abraham), but
just as many who might claim this mutual tolerance and good will, will also
gladly cut one another’s throats (literally), and the christians will
happily hand them the knife (or nuke) with which to do it.

I must offer this observation about the outwardly hostile, vengeful and
retaliatory nature of “radical” muslims (who are not really radical anyway,
since “radical” means “root” and if they were all radical, they would go
back to their roots and eschew hatred and violence.. but then so would
christians and the State of Israel…oh, well) against the western world: they
have been treated badly, treated as second or third class humans, derided,
chided, maligned, attacked and belittled for so long (christians are great
at selective perception. Did I mention that?), that they must look at
western wealth and success and have some form of penis envy. Perhaps they
have no choice but to lash out when the oppressions and humilities become
too great to suffer quietly? I wonder how our friends, the Saudi oil barons
feel about that? And I would also guess that the US backed state of Israel
starving out helpless Palestinians in the Gaza strip is not helping to
abrogate this situation, either.

Having broached that taboo observation, let me also say that “radical”
muslims and “radical” christian and “radical” jews, who thump Korans, thump
Bibles and look upon the slaughter of anyone “not their kind”, are all
simply “rednecks”. They have all come from the same gene pool that severs
the links between their lizard brain and their logic circuits at birth,
renders them reptilian, and allows them to be nurtured by the “too much of
a good thing” aspects of their respective faiths. In order that someone can
gain money, real estate, power and influence. Gawd forbid, they should deny
anyone the opportunity to share in the bounties of their “too much of a good
thing”.

I have a vision of radical Arab muslims, living side by side with
Appalachian Bible thumpers and Montana white-supremacist militiamen, along
the border of the Gaza strip, which is being patrolled by catholic Mexican
drug lords, driving American made Humvees.

Which brings us to democracy.

Christopher Hitchens says (quite accurately) that” Religion poisons
everything”. More precisely, the arrogant selective perception (by
religionists) of what is right and what is not, moral or not, based upon
whose interpretation of what constitutes “too much of a good thing” is the
real evil at work, here.

An aside: I heard an author on NPR this morning say that she has never seen
a dispute or schism or argument occur between christian and muslim factions
that did not have a “secular trigger”. So this begs the question, which came
first, Hitchens or the egg?

Democracy began as a good thing. The Greeks invented it (mostly), the Romans
corrupted it, the Church has abused it and the United States brought it back
into fashion in 1780 something. Contrary to current popular thought and
tea-party claims, this country was never intended to be “under God”, not to
mention to be any form of christian nation. But as freedom of religion has
allowed religion to “poison everything” (mostly by giving it unbridled
non-sanction, in the form of tax-free status for real estate, freedom of
speech and the acceptance of implied norms of morality), democracy has
become “too much of a good thing”. While purporting, on the one hand, to
give the “people” a voice (including, now, ruthless corporations, and
claiming that all men are created equal (except for women and people of
color), establishing truth and justice for all (if you can afford enough
lawyers and you are white), democracy in the United States has undergone a
death from the sheer weight of being “too much of a good thing.” (I hear a
libertarian clapping in the back of the room)

As in religious movements, wherein this poison seems to abound, the same
would appear to hold true for political movements, even democracy. As those
availably recorded in recent history would seem to indicate by their
evolutions, they all begin with the notion of setting men free, establishing
a new norm for equality and sharing the wealth, and so on: creating a good
thing. Marx, Mao, the French revolutionaries, the Russian revolutionaries,
the American revolutionaries (and more): they all had the same notion. And
they have evolved, however, into some form or other of oligarchy,
mal-distribution of wealth and human inequality, and ultimately, then, being
driven by some form of militarism. Despite the English Magna Carta, Britain
went on to enormous imperialistic adventures, post WWII saw Russia (The
USSR) become a mega-maniacal land-grabbing abuser of personal freedom, China
is masking its’ dependence up a failing communism with tremendous economic
growth (based upon western consumption) and the only hopeful signs are
beginning to emerge in South and Central America, where new forms of
government are resisting American and European imperialism and finding their
own voice in the international milieu.

But democracy in the United States of America seems to be dead. It has
killed itself with its’ own hype, its’ own bravado and braggadocio, its’
seemingly endless wealth and capacity for simultaneous creation and
destruction, creativity and wastefulness, a “too big to fail” posture and a
nearly now silent voice of the people. It has collapsed under its’ own
weight of self-delusion and empty cultural sprawl. (Read any good Howard
Zinn books, lately?).

Another way in which to view this scenario is to return to the pyramid
scheme metaphor. When you have too much of a good thing, then your
self-image, your view of your own existence, your “selected” perception is
blurred to the point where you might begin to believe that you really are
too big to fail. This not only allows, but also creates, a
social/monetary/cultural pyramid which is upside down: all of the wealth and
the power are piled on the top, and all of pressure and stress is on the
small point at the bottom: the people, whose voice is no longer heard,
because the din of the roar of the party being held on top is deafening.
Anybody remember, “Let them eat cake”?

By both having and being “too much of a good thing”, and “using up” instead
of utilizing resources (a consequence of having too much of a good thing),
and allowing religion to infiltrate, color, modify and taint nearly every
aspect of our secularity, democracy has lost its underpinnings. It has
believed its own swagger, wallowed in its own opulence, glossed over details
and created ideological wastelands that are so trash-laden with old ideas,
bad ideas, archaic laws and laws of temporary convenience, misconceptions
and emotional and psychological abuse of its’ citizens, that the dastardly
practice of selective perception (and memory) has become commonplace.
The United States is locked in an entwined pattern of religious and
political nostalgia. Thought patterns are too much anchored in a longing for
a past (that was not really very good…memory tricks have led us to believe
otherwise) and there is a great longing for a return to yesterday, last
week, last decade, a desire for a misty-eyed sentimentality not unlike the
onemaintained by those who wait for the return of Jesus, or Moses or
Mohammed. This is a destructive, backward-thinking, festering wound of the
consciousness. Looking over one’s shoulder is not altogether bad, when you
are eager to see who is coming behind you, and to help prepare the way.
When nostalgia prevents you from ever looking forward, you are surely bound
to run into a wall.

Nostalgia is but one of the tools that religious movements (and their
leaders) and political movements (and their leaders) employ routinely to
create patterns of selective perception, to subtly coerce people into seeing
only what they wish to see, remember what they only wish to remember (some
of which was never really there, in the first place)in order to make life
appear easier to swallow and help make daily trials and tribulations easier
to excuse, thereby always promising that tomorrow will be better, that the
salvation of some kind will come any moment, and that conformity to the
status quo, or a return to a former one, will make everything “OK”. It won’t.
Nostalgia, incidentally, is ably enabled by gullibility and naivete’.
I would like to add, here, a comment by William Grieder, in this book Come
Back, America, as regards the typical function of democracy in the United
States, today. He says this is what Washington (DC) portrays as
“statesmanship”: “When official America talks of “bipartisan compromise”, it
usually means the people are about to get screwed”.

It is time to return to secular politics and stop eulogizing dead or mythic
religious cultic figures (you have several from which to pick) as part of a
political strategy. And it is time to stop making icons of dead political
has-beens as though they were religious icons or prophets (I pick Ronald
Reagan). It is time to stop mixing religion and politics (Sarah Palin and
the 700 Club be damned). To use a different metaphor, mixing religion and
politics, two examples of too much of a good thing, together in the kitchen
of human commerce is a bad cultural culinary practice: it produces a stew
which is foul to the taste and contributes nothing the nutrition of thought
required to help both the brain and spirit grow and create cultural newness,
vibrancy and human sustainability.

When any “entity” becomes “too much of a good thing”, it becomes a bad
thing. Like too much ice cream, too many French fries, too many martinis,
too many sectarian branches of one idea claiming to be the one true way.
And intermixing the two discussed here, is simply a bad move. Why? Didn’t
your mother ever tell you that two wrongs don’t make a right?