In response to Ray So Cal’s comment re the importance of elections…the first round of the presidential election in France is April 10,2022. Meanwhile, as even the Swiss have “saved face” by dropping almost all covid-related restrictions, including the pass, Macron continues to punish his own citizenry. I have no doubt he will eventually lift these senseless and repressive measures just before the election ( Fr media is beginning to bandy about the idea, with a completely straight face…), in order to claim that he held firm, and that “ensemble” we’ve defeated the virus, this from the leader of the country of Professor Luc Montaignier, the eminent biochemist and researcher on HIV, whose death last week was barely mentioned…we’ll see what happens, as Le Pen (a French Trump NOT!), rises in the polls…
Great article! It really does come down to perceived threats to government authority and fear thereof. This is what scares me about the future. There really is no place for free and full exercise of Christianity (or other religion) in an authoritarian state - witness China and so many other examples through the years.
Most troubling of all is the disinclination of the clergy to lead in faith and stand up for the exercise of the faith. Indicates a lack of faith to begin with.
Prager's column appeared first on Townhall and PJMedia--I read it a few days ago. Many years ago, Prager and an Orthodox rabbi (I can't remember the rabbi's name, it's been a long time) were guests on James Dobson's radio program. At one point, the rabbi commented that when a Jew leaves the religion of his fathers, he doesn't have no religion, he has a new religion--liberal politics.
As for the churches--there has been a long-term conflict in the American church: is Christianity all about what goes on inside the buildings on Sunday? Or is it a way of life, 24/7/365? All too many of the clergy, of all denominations, including evangelicals, seem to have drifted toward the first choice. Not all of the Christians are okay with that--some of us have rejected that view, going back at least to the 1960s. There is a growing number of Christians who have largely abandoned the organized church--sociologist Josh Packard labeled them "Dones" in the book "Church Refugees" in 2015. He estimated nearly half of the people Pew Research labeled "Nones" for "no religious affiliation" were actually "Dones"--still believers, but "done" with the modern church system. Some of us prefer to call ourselves "Free-Range Christians." (Yes, I am one of them.)
A related issue: church brass are concerned about recent studies showing that church affiliation in the US has dropped below 50% for the first time since they started keeping track. I am not sure--I don't think anyone has done a serious study on this yet--but I strongly suspect that the organized church, of all denominations, has been losing ground with the blue-collar working class. When I was growing up, blue-collar and white-collar people still lived in the same neighborhoods, shopped at the same stores, and largely went to the same churches. In the local church I grew up in, the elders and deacons were a mix of both groups. What I see now in modern churches, not so much. It isn't universal--there are still some churches in poorer neighborhoods, sometimes still in storefronts, where it is not so bad. But most pastors are educated--bachelor's degree from college, then a graduate degree from a seminary, and they naturally are more inclined toward those with similar education. And I myself have known too many, of my own generation, who sucked up to the wealthier members of their churches. The result: the church in the US is a lot weaker than it looks.
@phil. Free ranger here as well. I have to note, though, that it is not easy to find believers outside of the Sunday club. Still working on that as being in community w others is essential to surviving the coming collapse and rebuilding something better.
It can be hard. We were able to link up with some others when Christian author Wayne Jacobsen came to our city for a weekend of informal meetings (his website is https://www.lifestream.org/. He is not the usual Christian guru!) For a while, some of us met every weekend, although nothing as formal as a house church. Part of the group are no longer in the area; but I will be visiting some others this evening. I also have some online Christian friends. And I am blessed to have my family all in the same city, which helps. On some things, you have to ask God to help you find the people you need--and it may be surprising where they turn up. And sometimes you just have to lean on Him.
I generally agree with what you state about the cultural/intellectual affinity between clergy and those of similar education. One can see how the term "clerisy" came to refer both to clergy and to the literati - which back in the middle ages were pretty much the same people.
I think it is also a class thing (one thinks of the "First Estate" in France, which tended to be closer to the Nobility in its interests than to the Commons).
All that said, I think there are differences between Christian denominations in this regard; they too have their respective class associations, which have come down through history due to the societal status of their adherents.
I find the idea of the clergy siding with or supporting the managerial class and the elites quite troublesome, as their allegiance should not be socially determined but rather be determined on the basis of their faith - which in turn should be based on their sacred texts.
As for the Episcopal Church (I was never part of that, but as a former preacher, I follow religion news), they now have half the membership they had in 1960--while the US population has doubled since then. Their members tend to be wealthy, so they still have money; but a recent estimate is that they will disappear by 2040, because they losing so many people--and their marriages and baptisms are declining even faster than their membership numbers.
Cant speak for others but ive never said elections have no impact whatsoever. That's a strawman. State/ Local in some areas may help.
I am more than happy to be proven wrong and discover that US elections at the federal level are honest; that the Criminal Cartel will willingly surrender their powers used to kill and maim millions to elected officials; that a Cartel reaping trillions in wealth from their scams and schemes at our expense will give up and cede control back to the People.
I don't know about elections or politics in Europe and its effect on us in the US is negligible. I can't get excited about "u turns" and removal of Scamdemic controls because it doesn't change the reality: we are ruled by a gang of criminals. So, great, yeah, the muzzles and vaxxports are "relaxed" (although apparently not going away entirely). So what? It's like living in a town run by the mafia. You find out that the corrupt police have closed down the opium den. Yippee. But the town is still run by the mafia and "the mafia gonna mafia" as they say. They won't change. They will start another racket and another ad infinitum.
Do we think we've won because the Criminals are abandoning (and that's not even sure) one scheme? Sure the Uniparty in dc wants to stay at the feed trough and so they'll give up the Jabocide(tm) and maybe forcible muzzles to fool people into thinking they have a voice. But the mafia stays in place. They will simply shift to a new Plague or new Crisis. The surveillance state will continue caging us in. There's no way that even 535 Republicans in Congress would end the criminal control. The Cartel isn't accountable to politicians. It uses, bullies, compromises, extorts, and kills them if necessary. Every single member of Congress gets the Talk and they understand the limits on what they can and cant say/ do. This will go on until it finally collapses. Two absolute certainties.
"I am more than happy to be proven wrong and discover that ... the Criminal Cartel will willingly surrender their powers ...; that a Cartel reaping trillions in wealth from their scams and schemes at our expense will give up and cede control back to the People."
Those, too, are straw men. Action in history rarely involves binary choices such as those. No one I know of is suggesting that oligarchical forces will fold up and go away, willingly cede power, or give up ill gotten gains. That has never happened in history and won't happen now--but change does come. And elections and what goes into preparing them--even imperfect ones--are ways to make a difference over time.
That's where we disagree. When you're dealing with organized crime, there is no way to vote it out. You can tinker around the edges, try to convince the mob to extort less from the longshoremen and more from the meatpackers, but the mob remains. Federal elections will never change that.
The Collapse will take care of most of these issues w organized religion. When people are faced w suvival, the ones who forge a genuine community of faith will be most likely to survive. The loners and the corrupt sociopaths won't. Out of the fire will come a remnant refined like gold. And then we start again, hopefully wiser and with new institutions organized around a hyper federalism. Faith will be not only relevant, it will be essential to daily life. But what a dark road it will be.
It's the long view to be sure but this rather cursory demographic explanation for the rise and fall of civilizations seems to me to tie into the discussion pretty well, cold comfort in the present state of affairs but affirming of I think the tragic view of history shared by (most / all) conservatives.
Good link HH, thanks. Unfortunately i think it suffers from a couple serious flaws. One, although he dwells on post republican Rome as an example, he neglects to mention what happened to Rome-- its conquest by barbarian hordes who had quite healthy birthrates. The obvious analog for us is the invasion of illegal hordes across the Mexican border where excess birth rates lead millions to migrate to our relatively empty land to further drain our overextended resources. Two, Longman assumes in his article a continuity of society that will result in an eventual predominance of conservative/ patriarchal values by virtue of superior birthrates. There's every reason to believe that society will collapse well before that happens. Third, he mentions only once the group having by far the most children: muslims. Europe will be effectively Muslim in another 20 years at this rate. Not a hopeful prospect. In my grim view, one silver lining is that the survivors of the Collapse will overwhelmingly be people of faith and patriarchal. But what kind of land will be left to rebuild, i wonder?
In response to Ray So Cal’s comment re the importance of elections…the first round of the presidential election in France is April 10,2022. Meanwhile, as even the Swiss have “saved face” by dropping almost all covid-related restrictions, including the pass, Macron continues to punish his own citizenry. I have no doubt he will eventually lift these senseless and repressive measures just before the election ( Fr media is beginning to bandy about the idea, with a completely straight face…), in order to claim that he held firm, and that “ensemble” we’ve defeated the virus, this from the leader of the country of Professor Luc Montaignier, the eminent biochemist and researcher on HIV, whose death last week was barely mentioned…we’ll see what happens, as Le Pen (a French Trump NOT!), rises in the polls…
https://brownstone.org/articles/society-vs-state-canada-reveals-the-core-conflict-of-our-age/
Great article! It really does come down to perceived threats to government authority and fear thereof. This is what scares me about the future. There really is no place for free and full exercise of Christianity (or other religion) in an authoritarian state - witness China and so many other examples through the years.
Most troubling of all is the disinclination of the clergy to lead in faith and stand up for the exercise of the faith. Indicates a lack of faith to begin with.
Prager's column appeared first on Townhall and PJMedia--I read it a few days ago. Many years ago, Prager and an Orthodox rabbi (I can't remember the rabbi's name, it's been a long time) were guests on James Dobson's radio program. At one point, the rabbi commented that when a Jew leaves the religion of his fathers, he doesn't have no religion, he has a new religion--liberal politics.
As for the churches--there has been a long-term conflict in the American church: is Christianity all about what goes on inside the buildings on Sunday? Or is it a way of life, 24/7/365? All too many of the clergy, of all denominations, including evangelicals, seem to have drifted toward the first choice. Not all of the Christians are okay with that--some of us have rejected that view, going back at least to the 1960s. There is a growing number of Christians who have largely abandoned the organized church--sociologist Josh Packard labeled them "Dones" in the book "Church Refugees" in 2015. He estimated nearly half of the people Pew Research labeled "Nones" for "no religious affiliation" were actually "Dones"--still believers, but "done" with the modern church system. Some of us prefer to call ourselves "Free-Range Christians." (Yes, I am one of them.)
A related issue: church brass are concerned about recent studies showing that church affiliation in the US has dropped below 50% for the first time since they started keeping track. I am not sure--I don't think anyone has done a serious study on this yet--but I strongly suspect that the organized church, of all denominations, has been losing ground with the blue-collar working class. When I was growing up, blue-collar and white-collar people still lived in the same neighborhoods, shopped at the same stores, and largely went to the same churches. In the local church I grew up in, the elders and deacons were a mix of both groups. What I see now in modern churches, not so much. It isn't universal--there are still some churches in poorer neighborhoods, sometimes still in storefronts, where it is not so bad. But most pastors are educated--bachelor's degree from college, then a graduate degree from a seminary, and they naturally are more inclined toward those with similar education. And I myself have known too many, of my own generation, who sucked up to the wealthier members of their churches. The result: the church in the US is a lot weaker than it looks.
@phil. Free ranger here as well. I have to note, though, that it is not easy to find believers outside of the Sunday club. Still working on that as being in community w others is essential to surviving the coming collapse and rebuilding something better.
It can be hard. We were able to link up with some others when Christian author Wayne Jacobsen came to our city for a weekend of informal meetings (his website is https://www.lifestream.org/. He is not the usual Christian guru!) For a while, some of us met every weekend, although nothing as formal as a house church. Part of the group are no longer in the area; but I will be visiting some others this evening. I also have some online Christian friends. And I am blessed to have my family all in the same city, which helps. On some things, you have to ask God to help you find the people you need--and it may be surprising where they turn up. And sometimes you just have to lean on Him.
Community is essential, and not so easy to rebuild once lost. Much of what passes for community these days is pretty superficial.
Completely agree. It will take an epic disaster to force people out of their comfy isolation. <sigh>
I generally agree with what you state about the cultural/intellectual affinity between clergy and those of similar education. One can see how the term "clerisy" came to refer both to clergy and to the literati - which back in the middle ages were pretty much the same people.
I think it is also a class thing (one thinks of the "First Estate" in France, which tended to be closer to the Nobility in its interests than to the Commons).
All that said, I think there are differences between Christian denominations in this regard; they too have their respective class associations, which have come down through history due to the societal status of their adherents.
I find the idea of the clergy siding with or supporting the managerial class and the elites quite troublesome, as their allegiance should not be socially determined but rather be determined on the basis of their faith - which in turn should be based on their sacred texts.
Interesting.
As for the Episcopal Church (I was never part of that, but as a former preacher, I follow religion news), they now have half the membership they had in 1960--while the US population has doubled since then. Their members tend to be wealthy, so they still have money; but a recent estimate is that they will disappear by 2040, because they losing so many people--and their marriages and baptisms are declining even faster than their membership numbers.
Mark, such interesting things to read! I just saw this on Breitbart London which is reliable for things European: Austria relaxes covid restrictions! https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2022/02/17/massive-u-turn-austria-to-repeal-almost-all-corona-apartheid-rules-targeting-unvaxxed/
And Holland follows suit…
Amazing the impact an election can have…
I hear reliably from some commenters that elections have no impact whatsoever. :-(
Cant speak for others but ive never said elections have no impact whatsoever. That's a strawman. State/ Local in some areas may help.
I am more than happy to be proven wrong and discover that US elections at the federal level are honest; that the Criminal Cartel will willingly surrender their powers used to kill and maim millions to elected officials; that a Cartel reaping trillions in wealth from their scams and schemes at our expense will give up and cede control back to the People.
I don't know about elections or politics in Europe and its effect on us in the US is negligible. I can't get excited about "u turns" and removal of Scamdemic controls because it doesn't change the reality: we are ruled by a gang of criminals. So, great, yeah, the muzzles and vaxxports are "relaxed" (although apparently not going away entirely). So what? It's like living in a town run by the mafia. You find out that the corrupt police have closed down the opium den. Yippee. But the town is still run by the mafia and "the mafia gonna mafia" as they say. They won't change. They will start another racket and another ad infinitum.
Do we think we've won because the Criminals are abandoning (and that's not even sure) one scheme? Sure the Uniparty in dc wants to stay at the feed trough and so they'll give up the Jabocide(tm) and maybe forcible muzzles to fool people into thinking they have a voice. But the mafia stays in place. They will simply shift to a new Plague or new Crisis. The surveillance state will continue caging us in. There's no way that even 535 Republicans in Congress would end the criminal control. The Cartel isn't accountable to politicians. It uses, bullies, compromises, extorts, and kills them if necessary. Every single member of Congress gets the Talk and they understand the limits on what they can and cant say/ do. This will go on until it finally collapses. Two absolute certainties.
"I am more than happy to be proven wrong and discover that ... the Criminal Cartel will willingly surrender their powers ...; that a Cartel reaping trillions in wealth from their scams and schemes at our expense will give up and cede control back to the People."
Those, too, are straw men. Action in history rarely involves binary choices such as those. No one I know of is suggesting that oligarchical forces will fold up and go away, willingly cede power, or give up ill gotten gains. That has never happened in history and won't happen now--but change does come. And elections and what goes into preparing them--even imperfect ones--are ways to make a difference over time.
That's where we disagree. When you're dealing with organized crime, there is no way to vote it out. You can tinker around the edges, try to convince the mob to extort less from the longshoremen and more from the meatpackers, but the mob remains. Federal elections will never change that.
Tx. There's a lot going on. I got the impression last night that today could be busy.
The Collapse will take care of most of these issues w organized religion. When people are faced w suvival, the ones who forge a genuine community of faith will be most likely to survive. The loners and the corrupt sociopaths won't. Out of the fire will come a remnant refined like gold. And then we start again, hopefully wiser and with new institutions organized around a hyper federalism. Faith will be not only relevant, it will be essential to daily life. But what a dark road it will be.
It's the long view to be sure but this rather cursory demographic explanation for the rise and fall of civilizations seems to me to tie into the discussion pretty well, cold comfort in the present state of affairs but affirming of I think the tragic view of history shared by (most / all) conservatives.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2009/10/20/the-return-of-patriarchy/
Good link HH, thanks. Unfortunately i think it suffers from a couple serious flaws. One, although he dwells on post republican Rome as an example, he neglects to mention what happened to Rome-- its conquest by barbarian hordes who had quite healthy birthrates. The obvious analog for us is the invasion of illegal hordes across the Mexican border where excess birth rates lead millions to migrate to our relatively empty land to further drain our overextended resources. Two, Longman assumes in his article a continuity of society that will result in an eventual predominance of conservative/ patriarchal values by virtue of superior birthrates. There's every reason to believe that society will collapse well before that happens. Third, he mentions only once the group having by far the most children: muslims. Europe will be effectively Muslim in another 20 years at this rate. Not a hopeful prospect. In my grim view, one silver lining is that the survivors of the Collapse will overwhelmingly be people of faith and patriarchal. But what kind of land will be left to rebuild, i wonder?