EnMasse

[Captain Obvious]

Alright, I'll bite:

In my dissertation, one of my arguments is that nationalism functions just like a religion. The definition I give is that religion is “a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden-- beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them.” (The Definition comes from Durkheim, 1915) Substitute ‘nation’ for ‘Church’ and we have nationalism.

I think this is a good way of thinking about it because both systems reify a concept, and give it their primary loyalty. Nations sing anthemns to this idea, have a set of sacred beliefs (i.e. The American Way!) and things which are set apart and forbidden. (Go ahead and criticize veterans (or Gretzky) and see how far you get.) Our founders become saints, we devise myths to explain our collective history and values, and so on. Both are such fundamentally emotional concepts that it is difficult not to apply the adjective "belief" to the nationalist. Some of you may have seen in the Toronto Star (I think) the other week the article "When a Separatist loses Faith" to explain Michel Tremblay's apparent change of heart.

Thoughts?

[The Evil Twin]

[The JF]

Regarding Michel Tremblay, he later on said he was still a sovereignist he just didn't want sovereignty for economic reasons, but...

I think the comparison is very just and very interesting. There are instances in history where the Church was the nation actually. Before the quiet revolution, what united French-Canadians was not so much culture but the Catholic Church, I've heard it called a Nation-Church instead of a Nation-State. When French-Canadians rejected the Church during the quiet revolution, what united them fell apart and a new identity was formed to fill in the gap left, which also ended up in francophones-outside-Quebec forming their own identity (this doesn't include Acadians who, while influenced very much by Quebec, is also influenced by Maritime anglophone culture, and our own heritage. We do things differently and never really considered ourselves "French-Canadian", even though we sort of did have a "quiet revolution" of sort that I've heard refered to by Radio-Canada as the "other revolution" which I found sort of insulting in a way)

The Catholic Church has often been an ally of nationalism, you can see it in Poland, in Ireland and so forth. The Anglican Church I suppose would lend itself particularly well to nationalism too, but in a different sense, it would support nationalism towards the English nation rather then support the nationalism of a people, because of the Crown and all that. In Québec, Duplessis' Union Nationale was very tightly associated with the Catholic Church and it was a nationalist party.

I agree that the mentalities of nationalism and religion are very similar, and one of their goal is similar: to keep a certain collective unity and shared values within a group of like people. For the people who adhere to it, it becomes them, it's very much an identity thing, I mean I wouldn't be surprised there's many, many people who would define themselves first by their religion then by their nationality. "I'm a Christian, and then an American?"

And of course, we can't forget about Islam, which while there's still bitter divisions among different Arab nationals, there's still this concept of an "Islamic nation" that all Muslims are part of, to a certain degree. The reaction over the drawing of the Prophet Muhammad seemed to have the same traits then a nationalist outrage would. Or maybe all mass outrages look the same.

[anotherlefty]

nice place you guys got here. another ex-babbler(i think i posted twice?) here.

anyways, good topic Ive always though economics is a form of secular religion as well (I know marxism is already in the dictionary of world religions). been

I would say interpreting economics as a religion rests on the principle that economics is a belief system with certain ‘tenets of economic faiths’ and value foundations. Faith is defined as the assurance of things hoped for and/or the conviction of things not seen. For economics, from Marxism to neo-classical, the basic underling narrative myth is the faith in material progress as the key to human and societal salvation. The ‘dismal’ science viewed the scarcity of goods as the underlying root cause of society’s moral problems and economics promised to build a Heavenly City on earth…by setting economic and social policy on rational principles. During the eighteenth and nineteenth century, the “gospel of efficiency” prophesized that the path to ending material scarcity was through increases in production efficiency. However, largely due to the industrial revolution, consumption of these goods could not keep pace with their production. As a solution, shopping was turned into a religious quest and experience to facilitate mass consumption. Therefore, an “economic gospel of consumption” replaced the “gospel of efficiency” as the dominant prophesy at the same time as the dismal science of classical economics was replaced by the optimistic science of welfare or neo-classical economics. Mass consumption, not mass production, became the path to salvation and human well-being.

Economists believe that economic progress is substantially improving the basic human condition for the better. This economic way of thinking is more than just a technical understanding of economic events, but also a source of ultimate understanding of the world; a form of secular cosmology. The root metaphors of a religious tradition links cosmology to morality; for economics, the root metaphor is the market because it is there that understanding of the world and value is derived. Capitalists were required to make a religious defence of the market by arguing that market relationships are as natural as biological ones. As a result of this, it became accepted fact that market equilibria are moral equilibria. Furthermore, economists viewed that the competitive free market is generally regarded as the primary means by which individuals enhance their own welfare.

The role of economists is to be the priesthood of a powerful secular religion. It is no coincidence that the historically religious institutions of Harvard and Princeton, that once educated the religious ministry of America, have now moved on to ‘enlightening’ the priesthood of economics. How could economic theology gain authority and become such a dominant ideology in our ‘scientific’ society? I think the answer lies in mathematics. There is a well known anecdote about a theist and an atheist debating whether God exists. The theist states, “Sir, (a2)/n = x, hence God exists; reply!” The atheist, a poor mathematician, could not respond and the theist was championed the winner. This highlights the appeal of using mathematical formalism as a way of furthering myths. For that reason, economists have turned to mathematics and the “voice of science” to conceal their religious messages in scientific rhetoric. Current economics is sanitized of any religious language but beneath the surface of their formal economic theorizing, economists are engaged in an act of delivering religious messages.

Hope not too thick writing but its amazing the similarities between economics (economism) and and religion. ive also read up on the how nationalism is a 'civic religion' but do not know as much. anyways, thought id throw in my thoughts.
_________________
"Earth Provides enough to satisfy every man's need but not every man's greed."

- M K Gandhi

[The very Irreverand Bill]

Hey All; I thought this might interest you. I read an article in the "Brandon Sun" today about a campaign amongst families and spouses,etc, of Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan called "Red Friday Campaign" to wear red on Fridays{like our flags colour} in a call to voice a love for God, country and home{and troops of course, lastly obviously}. I don't have a FULL lionk of the story from the B.S.-but here is a link to part of that story;

http://www.brandonsun.com/story.php?story_id=24944

And here is a letter to the editor that I just emailed to the "Brandon" Sun" in response to this. If you're interested in reading my thoughts. WARNING; yes, as usual my thoughts are controversial.

Feel free to share or not share this with others on your email list,etc.

{Quote;Bill's letter to ed:/}

Regarding "Red Friday Campaign" article{May 05/06}.

On first inspection, this campaign will seem to many to be nice and supportive of the troops. But on deeper thought, it reveals that many Canadians wish to be clones of the U.S., whom our soldiers are risking their lives and dying for in Afghanistan, when our soldiers should'nt even be there, or at least should "no longer" be there. 9/11 was 5 years ago, the Taliban was removed right after that when the U.S. sought vengeance and justice for the crime committed on 3000 innocent American civilians. However, America could've took their own vengeance and took out the Taliban on their own, they participated in that and than left it up to us to clean up their mess. Five years later our troops are still risking their lives in Afghanistan, this is no longer simply a peace keeping mission, but occupation{one that puts our soldiers lives at needless risk}, it's time for our troops to be pulled out of there.

What I find disturbing about the "Red Friday Campaign", is that it's apparently founded upon few scary things that should not be mixed together and then deceptively packaged as "troop support". These things mixed are nationalism/patriotism, war,capitalist anti-socialist/communist political extremes, and religious fanaticism. Yes, religious fanatacism. The article states that the call is for God and country. This is particularly disturbing because of a growing trend happening in Canada to become America junior or Americas clone, this all started when the Conservative gov't came into power and is planning to mess w/gay rights at some point for the religious right and we have PM Stephen Harper acting like the U.S. President, irresponsibly playing favoritism w/Judeo-Christianity and monothiesm by saying "God bless Canada" at the end of
speeches and whatnot. This "Red Friday Campaign" seems to be further indication of a social-political move amongst Canadian right-wingers to mix God and patriotism, and to scapegoat our soldiers for their religious and nationalistic arrogances. Seriuisly, if I were in the army and were stationed in Afghanistan against my wil-or even willingly, I as a nontheist would find it incredibly insulting to see my country turn into U.S. Jr. in this fashion, and to have my life which is at risk there beeing used by religious nationalists to promote their God and their nationalism.

Yes, I too do support our troops, our soldiers, and like American leftists I am showing my support by rather than participating in mindless religiously fueled pseudo-patriotism campaigns using the soldiers lives to promote such, I as a supporter of our troops will say what many Americans are saying to their leaders- "Bring our troops home, out of wars that they should not be in, or at least should NO LONGER be involved in; quit risking their lives for nationalistic and western stupidities and hypocrisies" . I would'nt be opposed to this "Red Friday" campaign if it were not for the obviuos U.S. style religious right mixed with nationalism and capitalism sentiments laced in the rhetoric. Why even include "God" in this campaign? What does the monotheistic "God" have to do w/this? If someone wants to support our troops by calling for them to be brought home{as these soldiers wives should
be dooing} or even if they support the troops beeing there- that's one thing, but to throw the monotheistic "God" into the mix, this means that like in the U.S.-unless you believe in "God" you will be considered less patriotic, this rhetoric of mixing "God" in there is a precurosor to such stupidity happening. Frankly, how is this any different than saying that the call is to "Voice a love for Zeus, country and home"? There IS no difference? Keep your personal faiths to yourselves and don't act as if to imply that Canada is a christian nation and that all the troops believe in your monotheistic "God"{or any god period}? This should be a wake-up call to Canadian rationalists of various types, Canadian non-monotheists and non-theists, Canadian liberal theists, to see how the Christian right and monotheistic right wish to slowly subvert and infiltrate our nation w/their
theologically based values and biases, much like has happenned in the U.S., and the ultimate end will be the same repression and demoniation of those they deem unworthy of pure equality such as "Gays, atheists/non-theists of other kinds, Witches,etc,etc" just as has happenned in the U.S. If we don't sayand do something about this subversion, history will repeat itself and the whole of North America will slowly head into the era of Christian superstition, demonizations and oppressions, once again.

If this campaign must take place, then please support our troops by calling for them to be brough home, or at least stop throwing the monotheistic "God" into the mix w/your patriotism, thereby insulting all non-theistic soldiers serving in Afgnanistan and risking their lives so you can subversevely impose theological ideas on everyone whom does'nt
share those ideals{this is not what they are fighting for}, soldiers have fought and died so that we can remain a country of TRUE Freedom "of" religions and freedom FROM religions both, TRUE social/political equality. This also turns it into an "Us VS. Them" religious war of "Christians/Judeo-Christians vs. the Muslims and everyone else". Is this what we want? And do you all want a culture war of Christianity/Monotheism vs. everyone else, like the one in the U.S.? Because if this is your aim, it could ugly, so stop it before it does. Because some od us are ready to stand up to the subversion. Yes, this subversion has begun since Stephen Harpers Conservatives got into power, there is a slow and steady trend towards Americanism and towards Christian arrogance beeing shoved into uor faces socially and politically, it became especially apparent once Harper started blessing Canada at
speeches in the name of Zeus...er..I mean Bible/monotheistic God; and now with this steadily growing in popularity "Red Friday" campaign mixing this same "God" with national patriotism{and implying patriotism requires a love of a Monotheistic God} and acting like it is out of love for our troops, I'm not buying it people. I'm sure these soldiers wives and families DO love their loved ones whom are risking their lives in Afgnanistan, so they should realize that our troops no longer belong there anymore and they should instead begin calling on our gov't to bring their loved ones home from needless danger, rather than keeping mainly silent about this and acting like in ordert to support our troops we must support the place and battle they are in; because frankly they DON'T belong in Afganistan anymore fighting risking their butts on behalf of America which has consistently showed
itself irresponsible and unworthy of our support in the Mid-East since Bush got ahem...cough...elected.

I'm not opposed to the "Red Friday" campaign in and of itself, so long as myths and theology/religion are kept sepeate from the campaign itself, and the campaign is instead used to call on our gov't to bring the troops back home out of Afghanistan and send em to a place where the can make a better impact rather than help eventually prop up a pseudo-democratic Muslim theocracy-which WILL be the outcome, just pull them out for lifes sake, they should'nt be there anymore. I urge readers to not buy into this American style faith/christian based pseudo-patriotism. It's more about theology and nationalism than about "pure" troop/soliders support{yes, that is "part" of it, but it should be ALL that it is about, not second to theology and nationalism}.

One last thing, I want to call on all rational Canadians to call on our gov't to remove the Monotheistic Gods special privelage in our Chrater of rightss and freedoms, for so long as the opening of the Charter reads "Founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God{monotheistic} and rule of law"{w/the God supremacy part noted first and foremost"}-then the Christian/monotheistic right will always be able to seek and recieve special recognition and privelages and subvert everyone else. Frankly, what the Charter says may as well say "Founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of Zeus and rule of law"-because in both cases, it's about myth and superstition and is not based on facts.

Thank you "Brandon Sun" for printing and thank you fellow Westman residents for considering my thoughts on this matter.

As always,

In Reason:

Bill Baker

Brandon


{Unquote/}

In Reason:

the very irrev.Bill
_________________
"There is no greater weapon against errors of any kind than REASON, I have never used any other and I trust I never will"-Thomas Paine.

"He who dares not offend cannot be honest"-Thomas Paine

[deBeauxOs]

[Fed]

Interesting points....

But the definition of religion you give, though, is strange. You write:

[elmateo]

I think the more important part of the connection is on how these 'beliefs and practices' are able to motivate people to do things. My fundamental difficulty with this is that people will make connections to people around them through various means, religion and nationality are two very strong ways right now. But with also have 'culture' 'ethnicity' etc. And in many ways these connections may seem irrational from sort of outside perspective, but they carry deep importance to the people who have them. And I don't know if the problem is that people form identities along religious, nationalistic, cultural, ethnic, etc. lines but rather how those identities are weilded. The problem with nationalism and religion (in many cases we see today) as constructed is their centralising focus on individual persons/moments in time and how this affects the ability to improve peoples relationships across identity boundaries. But these problems are not solely found in religion and nationalism but in all forms of large group identification. It leads me to think that the problem with religion and nationalism is not that they are a basis for identification but how modern nationalism and modern religion have been constructed. And if we could reconstruct them in a different way and how they inform individuals behaviour improves interidentity relationships then I don't see them as a necessary 'bad'.

I would also say that not all national and religious identities even in todays world have the negative influence - but there are many notable examples of how they have had a negative impact.

[Fed]

[elmateo]

I use constructed much in the way culture is constructed: there is both conscious and unconscious actors/actions which cause the evolution. By centralising I mean the predominate focus upon one person/group of people as all out authorities. In the case of the US, the president had been afforded this position, other examples would be military nationalism. In religion it would be certain Imams or Priests or Popes and their overwhelming influence. I guess you could draw parallels in the independent music scene to something like Pitchfork or NME. But music identity is trivial in the scope of authority it is given. But I also don't think the 'scope' of the authority is the problem either - such as if nationalistic and religious identification reinforced human rights for all, thats a very broad scope of authority.

I agree fully that the 'us vs. them' mentality that is part of nationalism and religion is on of the fundamental problems with how these concepts represent themselves. I don't think this problem is inherent to nationalism and religion, but rather is how through conscious and unconcious acts have been come to be represented. I think that as Canadians or as Christians or as Muslims or whatever identification, we have a responsibility to make conscious actions to drive these identifications in a more positive direction (certainly not through coersive authoritarian ways). We are all part of multiple identity groups that we can influence, and be influenced by.

Something like Canadian nationalism is something a lot of citizens in this country are a part of (most definately not all) and I see a lot of problems with how it is being used in the war on Afghanistan and in elections - I don't think the problem is 'nationalism' but how and by whom it is used to influence people. I see it as very 'undemocratic' right now.

[Fed]

[al-Qa'bong]

[NWOntarian]

Michelle Goldberg recently published a book on the subject called Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism about the blurring of lines between nationalism and religion in the United States.

Also, here she answers the question 'What is Christian nationalism and how is it different from fundamentalism?'

[Wilf Day]

What a strange discussion! I expected an analysis of Canadian nationalism, and I find people talking about American nationalism. Are we so colonized that we can't think about nationalism without thinking about them? Americans are hyper-nationalistic, therefore all nationalisms are bad, end of discussion?
_________________
Wilf Day
Port Hope, Ont.

[Red Albertan]

[deleted]

[Wilf Day]

[elmateo]

I don't think you can seperate 'nationalism' from a person - for what it is part of a person's identity shared with a community of people around them. I don't think its wrong to identify with one group of people stronger than another. That is human nature. Its what nationalism can be used to do in some cases, such as war, that is bad.

[Red Albertan]

[deleted]

[Wilf Day]

[al-Qa'bong]

[Boom Boom]

[elmateo]

[Wilf Day]

(double post)
_________________
Wilf Day
Port Hope, Ont.

[Wilf Day]

[elmateo]

I say again I am not against nationalism as part of an identity - and do think Canada's resistance to something like NAFTA in part on nationalistic lines is justified .

Its about how we use it that matters. We can also use nationalism to isolate ourselves from the world economy to the extreme - I don't think thats beneficial either. (I don't mean isolating ourselves from the capitalist economy but any and all economy). Or smug superiority in "our" national identity, I don't see that as necessarily beneficial.

BTW you can delete double posts with the little X to the right of the edit button .

[bshmr]

Israel group imitates actions against cultural center in NYC but against buddhists.

Warning Issued Against New Buddhist Center in Israel
by Elad Benari, IsraelNationalNews.com, Jan 13, 2010

[Sibjyn]

And on a similar, but not entirely the same, note:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2011/01/13/bc-ubc-h...

[voice of the damned]

[al-Qa'bong]

[6079_Smith_W]

[Slumberjack]

It should be possible to develop a national economy and still reject today's corporate style internationalism, which is an adaptation from the nationalism practiced by small groupings of nations in the past, allied into competitive blocs. Nowadays the western economic alliance practices economic based imperialism, not so much as direct colonial overlords like the British in India anymore, but just as effective with the propping up of dictators and a network of supporting military outposts around the globe.
_________________
There is this old notion, Bolshevik, a little frigid for sure; the building of the Party. I think that our present war is about giving new content to this depopulated fiction.

[al-Qa'bong]

[Slumberjack]

[bshmr]

The East(West) Indies Trading Companies and like were primary aspects of western colonialism as were the quests for wealth to preserve/expand hierarchical power/reign.

Rather than imply flattering [silent] consent to one side of the current context. <g>

[6079_Smith_W]

[al-Qa'bong]

[Slumberjack]

[al-Qa'bong]

[Slumberjack]

[al-Qa'bong]

If so, in your analysis corporatism then shares genes (being offspring and all) with colonialism and nationalism, and are thus related.

That may not be your contention, but that's what you wrote.
_________________
"The purpose of government is to protect the weak from the powerful" Hammurabi

"We can't all be Sam the Sham; some of us have to be Pharoahs" Larry, brother of Darrel, and his other brother Daryl

[Slumberjack]

[al-Qa'bong]

Maybe you could, but I wouldn't.

Today's corporate/consumer culture may be a child of many fathers, but it and the attitudes it engenders are rather recent developments in human history.
_________________
"The purpose of government is to protect the weak from the powerful" Hammurabi

"We can't all be Sam the Sham; some of us have to be Pharoahs" Larry, brother of Darrel, and his other brother Daryl

[Slumberjack]

[al-Qa'bong]

"By gosh, where did that come from?" Gosh, I guess pointing out a flaw in Marx's use of the dialectic could sound like that.

That Master's thesis I wrote on the influence of class on historiographical and literary bias related to the Industrial Revolution was a big ol' waste of time too, I guess.
_________________
"The purpose of government is to protect the weak from the powerful" Hammurabi

"We can't all be Sam the Sham; some of us have to be Pharoahs" Larry, brother of Darrel, and his other brother Daryl

[6079_Smith_W]

You know some places, pointing out anything that deviated from the Great Man's Book or suggesting that someone's expectations of it might be a tad starry-eyed would get you branded a red-baiter and shut down. This is a pleasant surprise.

I am all for finding parallels, connections and influences, but there are too many variables (including a major one in Middle Ages history - an erupting volcano, and the advantages of technology, and culture) to say it is all one thing.

Suppose things had gone a bit differently at Gettysburg, Lepanto, Stalengrad, or at Montezuma's court, that the Armada had not run into a freak storm, or that the provisional government had not decided to execute Thomas Scott, or that the Ming Emperor had not decided to stop overseas exploration? Or even, if Henry's first marriage had produced a male heir (and the same for his daughter, Queen Mary).

The accident that we call history would have been far different. It's not that I don't see the development of structures and systems as important. But I also think the fact that psychopaths have an uncanny ability to work their way to the top of them is probably even more important. There is a long enough list of potentially good experiments which were aborted for that very reason.

This gets back to our conversation about the fix, SJ. It's not that I don't see that it exists; I just think it is a bit more random.

[Slumberjack]

Even a Hollywood fictional movie buff could get a better sense from what passes for sense around here. In the movie Titanic they were having a conversation in one of the onboard salons, where the difference between UK elitists and American elitists was reduced to a description of old money vs. new money. The old moneyists were apparently falling on comparatively hard times, where certain marriage arrangements with new money was looked upon as the potential means toward a reversal of fortune.
_________________
There is this old notion, Bolshevik, a little frigid for sure; the building of the Party. I think that our present war is about giving new content to this depopulated fiction.

[al-Qa'bong]

While there have always been the rich and the poor (Benny Disraeli made the conflict between the two the central point of Sybil: or the Two Nations), that doesn't mean capitalism, nationalism, or religion have had the same static influence on humanity throughout history.

An argument could be made that commerce is our new religion. Its insidious tentacles have a grip on many of our attitudes, so much so that it is deforming our language. When we're referred to as "customers" rather than "citizens,", or when we talk about being such entities as "news consumers" (what were citizens of Nazi Germany, "consumers of propaganda?"), it seems obvious that the ethos of commercialism is a powerful influence in society.

It wasn't always this way. For example, back when The Church had a stronger tug on our souls than did The Bank, a guy like Thomas Aquinas could say that being engaged in commerce was "shameful." Such an utterance would be considered heresy here and now.
_________________
"The purpose of government is to protect the weak from the powerful" Hammurabi

"We can't all be Sam the Sham; some of us have to be Pharoahs" Larry, brother of Darrel, and his other brother Daryl

[Slumberjack]

[voice of the damned]

[al-Qa'bong]

Funny how a guy named "Captain Obvious" started this thread.
_________________
"The purpose of government is to protect the weak from the powerful" Hammurabi

"We can't all be Sam the Sham; some of us have to be Pharoahs" Larry, brother of Darrel, and his other brother Daryl