On Christendom

I wrote this in September of 2006...I still think it is relevant and I never posted it here.

I just read a very interesting (for lack of a better word) article (OnPoint) on a site that (no surprise) supports a sometimes radical view of the world. What struck me initially was this:

"The most critical question, and it remains an open question, is whether what remains of Christendom will defend itself or simply roll over and die."

While the author may think this is the most critical question, I heartily disagree. A much more critical question is: Is there a continued roll for religion, any religion, in its current form where the strong use it as a tool to dominate and intimidate the weak among the world's population?

I am not a big believer. Like Martin Luther, I see no value in organized religion. It serves me no purpose to go and sit in a building once a week and ask an icon for help that I am myself unable or unwilling to provide. I find little purpose in believing in something because someone tells me that I have to without producing a large degree of tangible evidence. The scientific method has stood the test of time (Aristotle's observations being some of the more well documented proof of this) and the ability to evolve and change ones mind based on new information is something that all humans share. But to take on faith the claptrap that surrounds modern religions is stretching the bounds of credulity.

Another sentence in the article that I have a problem with is this:

"It is improbable, to say the least, that any Western political leader will rally Christendom to defend itself."

Is this the job of a political leader? If Christendom is going to defend itself, a point that I would question, as the failure of the First and the Second Crusades pointed out quite strongly some 1000 years ago, it is not the job of a political leader but the Church, the soldiers of 'God' to defend it. The problem, however, is that most of the strongest of the soldiers have little power to convince the people in the decision making seats that defending Christendom is actually something worth doing. Now, it can be argued that the Religious Right in the United States is making great strides in dictating to the United States Government how they would like to see things done, but it is clear that the United States is rapidly becoming not only a pocket, isolated from the rest of the world view on this matter but also it is becoming clear within the country that the the goal of religion are not the goals of the American society in general for the very reasons that there is little value seen in defending Christendom.

It can be further argued that many Americans have abandoned all but a few hand selected tenants of the dictates that pass as the Christian religion, choosing those parts that make sense to them and abandoning those that do not. For the most part, the pieces that are selected are those that also tend to survive a strong philosophical examination as well. So the idea that murder is wrong is generally accepted while honoring your father and mother is less well accepted. What is strange about the current trend among those that consider themselves to be staunchly in the fold is the ability to completely ignore direct teachings (the "Golden Rule" jumps to mind) while misinterpreting others and we will not begin to discuss the whole coveting thy neighbour's wife (or thy neighbour). This then begs the question - Which form of Christendom are you going to defend?

War between culture have been occurring and will continue to occur long after the artificiality's of the state concept have faded into antiquity. Any scholar, whether historian, geographer or military leader will tell you that wars between cultures are not new, so to classify them as a Fourth Generation is simply misleading at best. They will mean as much or as little as the states and the citizens involved in the wars want them to mean. A state that is united can be as powerful or more powerful than any culture. It is when the state does not enjoy the full support of all of its cultures that it begins to have problems. A state that is comprised of a single culture will always be stronger than an agglomeration. Again, this is not new and this is a problem that the United States, despite its rhetoric of being a melting pot is going to have to come to grips with if it is going to continue to exist as a state able to wield influence in the world.