cross purposes

cross-purposes (jonathon rauch)

misc. personal notes on this book. no utility expressed or implied.

overview

the underlying premise is that democratic countries need a baseline of ethics roughly aligned with christian-ish values. the founding fathers allowed religious freedom but recognized that a functional democratic society needed a shared ethical substrate. they lived in a society with this baseline and likely didn’t anticipate today’s level of secularism.

john adams quote summarizing this:

We have no Government armed with Power capable of contending with human Passions unbridled by morality and Religion. Avarice, Ambition Revenge or Galantry, would break the strongest Cords of our Constitution as a Whale goes through a Net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

(quote)

rauch asserts that US secularism hasn’t improved ethical behavior. rauch (a gay, atheist with jewish background) contends people are struggling and democracy isn’t better off. he goes on to discuss 3-ish flavors of christianity.

i think it bears emphasizing: this is not an assertion for christianity specifically, but a socially, rauch asserts we need a common ethical framework. when we lose a common ethical framework, shit goes pear shaped.

⊕i’m thinking the nordics here. pushing back on this a bit - it’s worth noting that there are several examples around the world of functioning democracies where there’s a high degree of secularism with some of the lowest rates of corruption and some of the highest trust in their governments.

thin christianity

⊕well, actually, plenty replaced this. social-justice movements, individualism, wellness cultures, etc. think of this as mainstream religions which once provided moral codes but have imploded (due to scandals, etc.) or pandered to their flocks to the point where politics has infected religion. churches lack social cred and moral authority. god is indeed kinda dead, with nothing replacing the moral codes this model provided.

in short this form of christianity become a net importer of values from the secular world.

sharp christianity

⊕he’s talking about MAGA if you didn’t catch the drift. seen in evangelicals - minimal adherence to core christian principles, doesn’t demand much from members, fails to counter capitalist/materialist impulses. it has swapped the demands of faith for the demands of a political identity. it’s high intensity but focuses on fear, grievance and partisanship.

exhibits split between public/private beliefs - publicly aligning with un-christian divisive politics while striving for personal christianity. evangelical pastors lament “fox news has them for 10 hours a day, we get them for 1 hour a week.” the ethical influence of religion has been thoroughly weakened.

thick christianity

thick christianity demands a lot from followers, encompassing daily life. mormons exemplify this with serious time demands daily/weekly, structured life engagements (missionary work), financial expectations. this is not a retail friendly religion.

in seeking to protect their religious exercise, they’ve developed a nuanced relationship with government and individual freedoms. they don’t necessarily view compromise as bad but as something they need to actively engage in. there’s a considerable amount of time devoted to discussing this tension and some of the subtleties that are at play.

conclusions

i don’t think i’ve read anything recently that encapsulates so many of the tensions that we seem to be seeing in recent years as this. the hypocritical behavior associated with american religion and those professing religiosity.

that said, there are some interesting gotchas in the conclusions that are reached that are worth poking at a bit.

• a founding era “ethical substrate” is a nostalgia trap - it’s certainly worth noting that the founding fathers didn’t exactly have clean hands when it came to modern ethics. it’s not entirely clear that a shared ethical consensus is locked for good. i think we have plenty of examples of areas where that falls short.

the tensions and room for compromise that were outlined the discussions re: thick christianity bear further exploration.

• it’s likely worth noting that the LDS learned to compromised because they were a persecuted minority. accomodation was a survival strategy. i don’| perceive that it’s a virtue that fell out of thickness.