Quite the contrary. You would expect to find the new religion--wokeism--arising in precisely the place where the old religion is most acutely missed. And especially in a formerly Christian country, since Wokeism is essentially a new Christian heresy, having pretty much all the superficial aspects of the old religion with the exception of redemption and forgiveness. But in lacking connection to the source of the virtues it claims to uphold, it veers wildly off course.
As Flannery O'Connor put it: “If other ages felt less, they saw more, even though they saw with the blind, prophetical, unsentimental eye of acceptance, which is to say, of faith. In the absence of this faith now, we govern by tenderness. It is a tenderness which, long cut off from the person of Christ, is wrapped in theory. When tenderness is detached from the source of tenderness, its logical outcome is terror. It ends in forced-labor camps and in the fumes of the gas chamber.”
― Flannery O'Connor, Mystery and Manners: Occasional Prose
Thanks, I was going to make the same point. Helen has it backwards -- the religiosity of America recommends it as the place where we'd expect the new religion to be most successful. And also where we'd expect it to be most aggressive since it must do battle with a rather virulent Christianity.
" ... having pretty much all the superficial aspects of the old religion with the exception of redemption and forgiveness"
... and brotherhood. Christianity attempts to bring all people together 'We are all brothers in Christ' 'There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female ...' ... whereas of course wokeness divides us into Identities and in particular into the eternally warring camps of the Victims and the Oppressors.
Amen to that! What atheists like Helen don't understand is that liberalism itself grew out of Christianity--and only Christianity. It's no coincidence (as Tom Holland has pointed out) that the "West" -- i.e. Christendom -- is where liberal humanist values arose. They are fish swimming in Christian waters -- but they have grown so accustomed to it that they forget what water is. The dark question facing our times is what happens when we lose our connection to the source of our foundational values. Nietzsche tried to warn us about this.
It's an interesting paradox. What you say is superficially true, and yet it was precisely because the contest between liberalism and Christianity that liberalism triumphed. Christianity was the necessary opponent because as Pairodocs points out, tho Christianity abused its monopoly for almost 2000 years, still Christianity is the religion that, at it's core, must yield to liberalism and knows it. Besides which it might be more accurate to describe Western civ. not as the triumph of liberal humanism *over* Christianity, but rather a state of truce between them. Only recently has it been forgotten that even 80 years ago Christianity was 'everywhere' -- Enlightenment notwithstanding, our Culture was understood by everybody to be Christian to it's core.
You should read Tom Holland. Liberalism and humanism could only have grown out of a Christian substrate because the basic idea underlying these philosophies--that every human being has an inherent dignity and is equally deserving of certain fundamental rights--is a Christian idea. It's an idea that would have been utterly incomprehensible to the Spartans or the Romans or the pre-Christian pagans of Europe or almost any other group in history. It is a very strange--an to some extent unnatural-- idea when you start to think about it deeply. We only see it as intuitive and natural because we've been immersed in Christian culture for 2000+ years. The scary thing is, we are at risk losing it if we lose sight of (and connection to) where it came from. If you are interested, please read my Substack: https://pairodocs.substack.com/p/in-defence-of-the-christians
This is just Christians living in a bubble. Buddhism not only recognises that every individual has value, it extends it to every living thing. Similarly the Stoics, along with many others, promoted the Golden Rule, which involves recognising others as being on a par with oneself.
Small pockets of pre-Christian Greek culture did, sure--and they had a profound influence on early Christian thinkers--but it was never widely accepted in the pre-Christian ancient world. As for the Buddhists, their extension of inherent value to "every living thing" is probably why they also didn't come up with humanism, which is a decidedly pro-human philosophy (as the name suggests). They also didn't completely reject the caste system, btw. As I said, it's no coincidence that liberalism and humanism arose in "Christendom" with its idea that every human being is created in God's image.
The enlightenment was a product of the constant dissention that arose from the reformation, which in turn arose out of the development of the printing press and greater literacy. Consider England's Glorious Revolution of 1688 and Hume's writings, the were antecedent to USA's declaration of independence written by Jefferson. It's not that Christianity 'lost power' it's that the idea that different points of view could be developed, exercised, and expressed which gained power.
Translation: there was internal division within Christianity (not least because Henry VIII wanted to remarry), which led to brutal conflict, with opponents tortured and cruelly executed.
This weakened the Christian monolith and left some space for dissident views. Even so, a man was jailed for blasphemy in the UK as late as 1921.
Glad somebody else picked up the Nietzschean thread here. I've thought a lot lately about how we're getting into the era where his prophetic pronouncements ring ever truer. Donald Trump as Christian Everyman, Imane Khelif as Intersex Woman, the looming transpocalypse, the heel turn of Nazi Israel, and everyone still standing with Amber Heard... bad air! Bad air!
100% !!! Many adults that claim to be Christian promote schools keeping secrets from parents and literally teaching kids how to have all kinds of sex in school. Plenty of churches have trans flags out front and promote child genital mutilation via wrong body nonsense. In the US, many self-identified "Christian churches" promote ideologies contrary the most basic shared values of Christianity that held constant over thousands of years previously.
Jesus believed in the death penalty for those whom harm children, opposed the sexualization of children, and taught a child's primary teachers are their parents. Jesus's teaching directly contradicts the idiocy that one can be born in the "wrong" body. Jesus taught we are all one body not to segregate ourselves into "affinity groups" with people who share similar demographic characteristics. He certainly didn't promote hiding from each other and the sick as many supposed "churches" did during Covid.
To be blunt, many non-believers have co-opted the buildings, routines, and infrastructure of "churches." but what they promote is not Christianity. This article wrongly assumes that simply claiming to be Christian makes you one, and much like the woke definition of woman, if your idea of being a "Christian" doesn't mean anything in particular, then you can't draw conclusions based on meaningless data.
Yes I can. Mathew 18:6 ““If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.”
The entire thesis of this argument rests on the assumption that "self-identification" is accurate - which is itself a woke decidedly unscientific way of conducting analysis. The woke concept of "woman" is a woman is anyone who says they are. One gets an entirely different picture of the US if the values people live and promote with their time and treasure are used to analyze if someone "is" Christian or not, as opposed to simply checking the box "Christian" for those who self-identify as such.
I'm not sure I'd compeltely agree. It's because of that hyper-religiosity that Helen mentions that wokeism takes over. It might not be caused by atheism but many atheists never shrugged off religion, they just lost theism. I've said for a long time that religion is less of a theology and more of a psychology as I captured with woke ideology here: https://www.polymathicbeing.com/p/religion-as-a-psychology
That's a very good point. One might define religion as a belief system centered on deities, but that would exclude Buddhism. The essential thing about religions is the type of mind they inhabit, we see it most strongly in the fundamentalist zealot. But that same kind of mind is just as happy to become a fundamentalist zealot in the service of a political movement or many other 'causes' -- Greta's environmentalism, or the animal rights fanatics, or even devotion to a musical group.
That's my line of thought. I also don't see the US as unique in the west. We are a much more mixed back of tricks with our crazy diversity which creates polarization but I don't think the zealotry is unique.
There is a principle. Beautiful Principle. There is Reality.
Atheism - infact has cause wokeism. Wokeism is NOT a united states phenomenon. Wokeism is imported from European Philosophies, dervied from atheistic thinking AND relative truth - which you have even written a brilliant book on it (Cynical Theories)
In America, this became prominent because of incentive structures racism and diversity provides.
I'm from Asia. I'm a hard core atheist. Real hard core. However, there are three things Western Civilization should be worried about apart from Wokeism.
1) Islam : Not because it is inherently violent. Historically Christianity has been more violent. Islam in west, is like how fanatical early christianity used to be when that religion spread to Europe. People thronged to Christianity at that time, because it gave purpose, strong community in an ocean of freedom and joy
2) Decline of Christianity: It's NOT like I love christianity. Christianity has gone through major reform and it recognizes individual freedom more or less and compatible with Democracy. Islam is NOT. Muslims slowly ask for segregational practices in the name of respect
Wokeists becauae of oppressor/oppressed narrative sadly supports islam, ignoring it is second largest religion and there are 55 countries where majority are muslims.
Islam will ride on the wave of wokeism and both will defeat western civilization because they are fanatics.
History says answer to Fanaticism is even more fanaticism, which Christianity provides.
As a strong non-west, non-christian I root for christianty because it is reasonable in current form
It is good to warn about Islam, but this is wrong. Islam IS inherently violent, because it is based on the words the fake prophet Mohammed put in Allah's mouth, and Mohammed was a violent man.
Mohammed was a warlord who led followers to raid caravans, attack other tribes, ordered murders, enslaved women and children, and in general used declarations to kill for his power. These attacks were the acts of bandits looking to plunder wealth of others. Mohammed invented 'revelations' to incite his followers to kill and steal for him.
Had Mohammed been just a warlord, no different from other violent thug leaders, his evil would have been gone with him. But he put "kill the unbelievers" into the Quran. He ordered the murder of his critics. He created verses that said husbands can beat their wives and warriors could rape captured women, and "Allah" approved. His calls for "Jihad" ie holy war, against "unbelievers" led to 1400 years of Islamic attacks, wars, and subjugation of others. Mohammed's example of beheading the 700 Banu Qurazay jews in Medina - a war crime - is something Hamas and ISIS Jihadists emulated in recent times.
The CORE of Islam is Quran and Mohammed's example, which is violent. that is why there is violence in Nigeria, Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, Israel/Palestine, Bangladesh, Pakistan ... and why there is oppression in Iran, Pakistan ... and why Islamic world lacks democracy, human rights, and women's rights. Islam is rotten at its core.
This is nothing like Christianity, whose core ethics is the Sermon on the Mount and the universal commandment to "love one another as you love yourself" any other religion deserve respect - Sikhs, Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc. But Islam was formed for conquest of others and then their subjugation.
Muslims don't see Mohammad as a warlord who ordered to kill people. They see him is a person who brought Allah's grace.
Islam as practised historically is a combination of several things. Bible (both New and Old,especially Old) had horrible verses too.
Christianity was historically violent NOT because of Sermon of the Mount obviously. It was violent because it labelled people as heretics, pagans, blasphemeres and "those going to hell"
If you think islam is inherently violent, you don't understand Islam and it will defeat you, because of your simpistic understanding.
Islam is totalitarian faith and Muslims consider themselves as slaves of Allah. In that slavery, some are good things and some are bad things
Your goal is to break that slavery to Allah. Your goal shouldn't be blaming Islam as violent.
"Your goal shouldn't be blaming Islam as violent."
This is not about goals, this is about the truth.
Mohammed put over 164 "Jihad" verses in the Quran during his lifetime, inciting followers to attack and kill non-muslims again and again.
2.216 "Fighting has been enjoined upon you while it is hateful to you. But perhaps you hate a thing and it is good for you; and perhaps you love a thing and it is bad for you. And Allah Knows, while you know not."
4.74] Therefore let those fight in the way of Allah, who sell this world's life for the hereafter; and whoever fights in the way of Allah, then be he slain or be he victorious, We shall grant him a mighty reward.
[Mohammed enticed his followers to fight by saying they will go straight to heaven and get 72 virgins forever]
[3.157]...if you are slain in the way of Allah...mercy is better [those who do Jihad and are killed are rewarded] than what they amass [what those who stay home from Jihad receive – no booty on earth and no perks in heaven]
"[8.65] O Prophet! urge the believers to war; if there are twenty patient ones of you they shall overcome two hundred, and if there are a hundred of you they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they are a people who do not understand"
I agree that Islam is totalitarian. So were the Incan empire, but Inca empire didn't conquer and destroy others.
Islam is more than totalitarian; it is expansionistic and violent, with fundamentalist muslims, like Iran mullahs, believing in the Quranic verses that fighting to make the whole world under Islam is directed by God.
After Mohammed's death, the 'recipe' of constant fighting against "non-believers" led to Arab conquest by the sword in the next 100 years of much of the middle east, from Persia to Morocco. Jihad - war against non-muslims - is at the core of Islam. It's the truth, whether you deem it helpful or not in weaning mordern muslims from Islam or not.
Every other religion don't work like that, but Mohammed's did.
By 635AD, Islamic rulers forced expulsion of the Jews and the Christians in AD 635 from the Arabian Peninsula - by the "Just" and so-called "Rightly Guided" Khalifa Umar Ibn Al Khattab, just 15 years after Mohammed came into Medina with only a handful of followers, allowed in by the peaceful Jewish tribes of Medina.
When Mohammed had no power in Mecca, his verses were just about his 'revelations' of mix of pagan, Christian and Jewish tales. But in Medina, he needed to acquire wealth, and found a way by having his muslims attack caravans and tribes, plundering and enslaving them. his power led him to incite his followers to attack even more, putting his attacks into the Quran. THAT is the problem.
"Muslims don't see Mohammad as a warlord who ordered to kill people. They see him is a person who brought Allah's grace."
That's the problem. Mohammed was in actual reality a caravan-raiding warlord who participated on no less than 70 attacks on other tribes and caravans, including the destruction of the 3 Jewish tribes of Medina - Bani , attacks on Quraysh caravans, and more. Mohammed used his claimed prophet status to gain power. The problem
is Hadith and Quranic verses that 'justifies' his actions. This twists the morality in Islam and corrupts it. Even Quranic verses that Mohammed got 20% of the loot.
"If you think islam is inherently violent" - I don't think that, it declares it itself.
It doesn't ask muslims to fight, it COMMANDS them to fight. Mohammed declared his own orders to attack others as the words of Allah:
Surah 2:216
Fighting has been enjoined upon you while it is hateful to you. But perhaps you hate a thing and it is good for you; and perhaps you love a thing and it is bad for you. And Allah Knows, while you know not.
Sura 9:29 says: "Fight (slay and kill) those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the last day (judgement day), nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor they follow the religion of truth (the religion of Islam) out of those who have been given the Book (Jews and Christians), until they pay the tax, in acknowledgment of superiority and (recognition that) they are in a state of subjection (to Islam).
If you don't understand how this is the root of Islam's 1400 years of violence on other religions, even up to today, when Jihadist terrorists yell "Allahu Akbar" and attack non-muslims, you understand nothing of Islam.
Sura 5:51 says: O ye who believe, take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors. They are but friends and protectors to each other, and he amongst you that turns to them for friendship is one of them Verily, Allah guideth not a people unjust (Jews and Christians).
Have you read the Old Testament by any chance? Not only are the tribes and the later kingdom rather fond of violence, but Hashem Himself is in there throwing down fire & brimstone, turning people to pillars of salt, and trolling the faithful when He wasn't cursing Amalek.
Regardless, Christianity has the worse track record by far. Modern Islamic fundamentalism was a predictable response to the establishment of a multinational Jewish state, by Western Christian fiat, on Muslim Arab lands.
You are at other end of the spectrum ignoring what islam has done historically.
That modern Islamic fundamentalism is response to Jewish state is exactly what Islamists want you to believe and you fell into the trap.
Have you forgotten, Arabic colonization, jizya, longest slavery conducted by Muslims, complete erasure of pre-islamic culture (so that there are no records of its brutality )? Tendency to impose sharia law, kashmir, chechenya, fundamentalism in Philippines etc ?
The self-proclaimed 'prophet' Mohammed committed the war crime of executing 700 men of the Jewish Bani Qurazay tribe 1400 years ago, kicking off 1400 years of genocide, Jizya, dhimmitude and attacks on Jews, Christians and others, long before Israel ever existed.
Have you read the New Testament by any chance?
Mohammed put over 160 "Jihad verses" calling on his followers to attack and kill 'non-believers', and called it the word of God. I challenge you to find anything similar in the Gospel.
Sura 9:29 says: "Fight (slay and kill) those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the last day (judgement day),..."
Whataboutism attacks on Christianity are both ignorant and mis-placed; it does not erase or absolve Mohammed's violence that he seeded into Islam.
The state religion of the Roman empire and all of Europe throughout the Dark Ages to the Inquisition, colonialism, slavery, two world wars, corporate capitalism, and beyond? Yeah, I'm sure Christianity has nothing to answer for.
If you are clubbing random things to christianity for which it is NOT the primary cause, why don't you add similar random things such as scientific revolution, removal of poverty, destruction of slavery (remeber it was christian nations that went to battles and wars to end slavery although longest and probably largest slave trade was done by Muslims ), democracy, improvements in medicine, geographical and space exploration, getting people to interact on subsrack made possible by capitalism?
Funny how they blame all the ills of history on Christianity, yet won't give any credit to Christianity for birthing modern civilization itself, which grew out of Christendom.
Civilization vastly predates Christianity, and most of contemporary Western civilization's advances have been resisted by and made in spite of Christianity, not encouraged by it.
Excellent article, Helen, as always. I especially appreciate your point about how humans are unable to agree on belief systems and so inevitably splinter and break off from each other to establish new systems — hence the key importance of a building expectations of tolerance and pluralism into our social mores and institutions. We have quite a long way to go with that: it is ineffably difficult to think someone else’s weltanschauung is wrong or absurd, but respect all the same his autonomy and agency exactly as one expects one’s own to be accommodated. Also, I suspect that there are many more people who are interested in coming out on top in an argument than there are who would make basic liberal values their highest priority.
I can’t really believe that liberal values are another case of ‘nice idea, wrong species’ but I admit that a thought like that occurs to me sometimes. Your voice is one that encourages me not to dabble in such despair overmuch.
This one misses the mark. I do sympathize with the 'non-woke atheists', as they don't want to be tarnished with any connection with wokeness. But clearly, wokeness is filling a spiritual void that atheism cannot satisfy. America was founded not upon orthodox Christian beliefs, but always a deistic nation, and 'deism' was long regarded as a variant of atheism. Read Matthew Stewart's book on this topic. Further, what exactly would 'orthodox Christianity' be, other than Catholicism? Protestantism is itself a heresy against the original Catholic faith. Our country was never accepting of Catholics unless they were denuded of the true faith (a'la Biden and Pelosi). Traditional Catholics are today the number one enemy of the American state.
No, when you actually understand our nation's founding, the fact that America is the center of wokeness makes 100% sense. Wokeness is a natural response to atheism. It takes the liberalized elements of the Christian West ("all are welcome, especially illegals", "love your neighbors, especially in a sexual way") and discards all the 'nasty' elements that go against liberalism. Atheists and liberals need to really ponder on this truth, as it does indeed speak to the failure of their ideology to fully grasp human nature. Ideology is a false god for genuine spirituality, and the woke are the canaries in the coal mine.
Atheism may not have caused wokeism, but the erosion of christianity created the space it inhabits, and the decades long attack on religion in the west, created a void in human life that most people were unable to fill individually.
Wokeism is a secular, non-theistic religion that provides moral strictures, hierarchical order, and the illusion of community. It was unrealistic for "The new atheist" to knock out the supports and expect the structure it supported to remain.
As a contributing audience member who nodded like a seal, I have to admit I was wrong.
Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens aren't solely to blame, but the "cultural Christian" Dawkins seems to have realized something catastrophic has happened.
More than a decade ago, Sam harris suggested it was a condecending elitist position to think that your average person needs what a faith tradition provides.
Rabbi Wolpe responded by saying "when you get rid of god you will find the world is not made up of Sam Harris."
Religious Jew here. I think you misunderstand Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s position here. (I presume you are responding to her.) No one sensible in the heterosphere is arguing for a Christian theocracy. Of course religious coercion just makes conflict worse. That is the story of Chanukah.
The real argument is that in the absence of *traditional* Christian (or Jewish) values and the structure this gives to people’s lives, people seek meaning elsewhere. And often in bad ways. Cults thrive when people lack purpose and structure.
I should add that the worst wokist abuses happen in religious communities infected by the woke mind virus. I have heard heartbreaking stories of families (some of them lesbian) pushed out of their reform synagogues or left-wing churches because they committed heresy by not affirming their trans-identifying daughter. This is because wokism has replaced traditional religion. This is a cultural disaster.
So yes it isn’t exactly that atheism caused wokism. It is more complicated. That’s why you have failed here by arguing with a straw man. I respect you too much Helen not to expect better than that from you.
Well said. The whole "Christian theocrat" argument is bogus. Progressives will complain about believers in restoring the American social and political traditions of USA pre-Obama. They act as if faith in God itself is "theocracy" Huh.
What it really speaks to is the totalitarian impulse in the left to stamp out dissenting non-progressive beliefs. When you consider progressivism AS the religion they hold to, it all makes sense.
I don’t think Helen has any totalitarian impulses. She is a true liberal. I think what’s happening here is a crisis of faith among heterodox atheists. Because they can see that the only other sensible people around seem to be traditional religious folks. And they always thought that religion was backward.
To be clear, I was not labelling Helen, but only those leftists of the 'cancel culture' variety, who are highly intolerant of non-progressive POV, such as you describe in your anecdote about families getting kicked out of synagogues for not affirming a trans child.
I was thinking of the people who cancelled Brendan Eich, the inventor of Javascript, driven from Mozilla by leftists over his support of traditional marriage. That was 2012, and since then its gotten much worse in some places. Those who consider religion 'backward' must see how this ideological intolerance / witchhunt behavior has all the flaws of established religion of old times and then some.
"Nobody is advocating for medieval attitudes to Christianity or making anybody believe anything.” Well, if you are not, you are speaking about a later form of Christianity softened by liberalism and rendered optional by liberal democracies"
I'm not convinced that follows. The earliest forms of Christianity seem pretty peaceful to me. The impulse to coerce belief appears to rise once the Church was aligned with the Empire under Constantine. It seems to me one could make an argument similar to yours against atheism itself (i.e., Atheism was the official position of the State in the Soviet Union. In the name of atheism Soviets coerced and abused others. Therefore, atheism = coercion.).
Thank you! The false choice people have been presenting has been really frustrating. It is great to have the examples you give as well, thank you for that!
Thank you for his, Helen! If there is a link between religion and wokeism I’ve also long suspected that it lies more in the degree of religiosity (and religious fervor) of a particular culture than any kind of substitution effect. My country of Sweden is both very secular and, in my opinion, significantly less woke than the U.S. and Canada. I’m not saying there isn’t insanity I’d like to see expunged from public institutions, but the situation is less dire than in many other places.
Its weird how the same people who are eagle-eyed at pointing out the stupidity when wannabe radicals say "Marxism has never been tried" so they can write out of existence the history of its disasters who then think Christian Theocracy is a great idea given secularism rose in part because of the disaster that was muscular political religion in wrecking Europe. These neo-theocrats want to write out of history all the nastiness of Christianity as if they have suddenly found the ideas that no Christian for most of history would have recognized as being part of Christianity.
Quite the contrary. You would expect to find the new religion--wokeism--arising in precisely the place where the old religion is most acutely missed. And especially in a formerly Christian country, since Wokeism is essentially a new Christian heresy, having pretty much all the superficial aspects of the old religion with the exception of redemption and forgiveness. But in lacking connection to the source of the virtues it claims to uphold, it veers wildly off course.
As Flannery O'Connor put it: “If other ages felt less, they saw more, even though they saw with the blind, prophetical, unsentimental eye of acceptance, which is to say, of faith. In the absence of this faith now, we govern by tenderness. It is a tenderness which, long cut off from the person of Christ, is wrapped in theory. When tenderness is detached from the source of tenderness, its logical outcome is terror. It ends in forced-labor camps and in the fumes of the gas chamber.”
― Flannery O'Connor, Mystery and Manners: Occasional Prose
I wrote about this here: https://pairodocs.substack.com/p/in-defence-of-the-christians
Thanks, I was going to make the same point. Helen has it backwards -- the religiosity of America recommends it as the place where we'd expect the new religion to be most successful. And also where we'd expect it to be most aggressive since it must do battle with a rather virulent Christianity.
" ... having pretty much all the superficial aspects of the old religion with the exception of redemption and forgiveness"
... and brotherhood. Christianity attempts to bring all people together 'We are all brothers in Christ' 'There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female ...' ... whereas of course wokeness divides us into Identities and in particular into the eternally warring camps of the Victims and the Oppressors.
Amen to that! What atheists like Helen don't understand is that liberalism itself grew out of Christianity--and only Christianity. It's no coincidence (as Tom Holland has pointed out) that the "West" -- i.e. Christendom -- is where liberal humanist values arose. They are fish swimming in Christian waters -- but they have grown so accustomed to it that they forget what water is. The dark question facing our times is what happens when we lose our connection to the source of our foundational values. Nietzsche tried to warn us about this.
Another thing that helped Europe was the medieval Catholic Church banning cousin marriage—it broke up the tribes creating a society unlike any other.
Liberalism developed when Christianity lost power. Christian society was illiberal for 1600 years while Christianity was dominant.
Liberalism didn't develop under Islam because Islam didn't lose power.
It's an interesting paradox. What you say is superficially true, and yet it was precisely because the contest between liberalism and Christianity that liberalism triumphed. Christianity was the necessary opponent because as Pairodocs points out, tho Christianity abused its monopoly for almost 2000 years, still Christianity is the religion that, at it's core, must yield to liberalism and knows it. Besides which it might be more accurate to describe Western civ. not as the triumph of liberal humanism *over* Christianity, but rather a state of truce between them. Only recently has it been forgotten that even 80 years ago Christianity was 'everywhere' -- Enlightenment notwithstanding, our Culture was understood by everybody to be Christian to it's core.
You should read Tom Holland. Liberalism and humanism could only have grown out of a Christian substrate because the basic idea underlying these philosophies--that every human being has an inherent dignity and is equally deserving of certain fundamental rights--is a Christian idea. It's an idea that would have been utterly incomprehensible to the Spartans or the Romans or the pre-Christian pagans of Europe or almost any other group in history. It is a very strange--an to some extent unnatural-- idea when you start to think about it deeply. We only see it as intuitive and natural because we've been immersed in Christian culture for 2000+ years. The scary thing is, we are at risk losing it if we lose sight of (and connection to) where it came from. If you are interested, please read my Substack: https://pairodocs.substack.com/p/in-defence-of-the-christians
This is just Christians living in a bubble. Buddhism not only recognises that every individual has value, it extends it to every living thing. Similarly the Stoics, along with many others, promoted the Golden Rule, which involves recognising others as being on a par with oneself.
Small pockets of pre-Christian Greek culture did, sure--and they had a profound influence on early Christian thinkers--but it was never widely accepted in the pre-Christian ancient world. As for the Buddhists, their extension of inherent value to "every living thing" is probably why they also didn't come up with humanism, which is a decidedly pro-human philosophy (as the name suggests). They also didn't completely reject the caste system, btw. As I said, it's no coincidence that liberalism and humanism arose in "Christendom" with its idea that every human being is created in God's image.
The enlightenment was a product of the constant dissention that arose from the reformation, which in turn arose out of the development of the printing press and greater literacy. Consider England's Glorious Revolution of 1688 and Hume's writings, the were antecedent to USA's declaration of independence written by Jefferson. It's not that Christianity 'lost power' it's that the idea that different points of view could be developed, exercised, and expressed which gained power.
Translation: there was internal division within Christianity (not least because Henry VIII wanted to remarry), which led to brutal conflict, with opponents tortured and cruelly executed.
This weakened the Christian monolith and left some space for dissident views. Even so, a man was jailed for blasphemy in the UK as late as 1921.
Glad somebody else picked up the Nietzschean thread here. I've thought a lot lately about how we're getting into the era where his prophetic pronouncements ring ever truer. Donald Trump as Christian Everyman, Imane Khelif as Intersex Woman, the looming transpocalypse, the heel turn of Nazi Israel, and everyone still standing with Amber Heard... bad air! Bad air!
100% !!! Many adults that claim to be Christian promote schools keeping secrets from parents and literally teaching kids how to have all kinds of sex in school. Plenty of churches have trans flags out front and promote child genital mutilation via wrong body nonsense. In the US, many self-identified "Christian churches" promote ideologies contrary the most basic shared values of Christianity that held constant over thousands of years previously.
Jesus believed in the death penalty for those whom harm children, opposed the sexualization of children, and taught a child's primary teachers are their parents. Jesus's teaching directly contradicts the idiocy that one can be born in the "wrong" body. Jesus taught we are all one body not to segregate ourselves into "affinity groups" with people who share similar demographic characteristics. He certainly didn't promote hiding from each other and the sick as many supposed "churches" did during Covid.
To be blunt, many non-believers have co-opted the buildings, routines, and infrastructure of "churches." but what they promote is not Christianity. This article wrongly assumes that simply claiming to be Christian makes you one, and much like the woke definition of woman, if your idea of being a "Christian" doesn't mean anything in particular, then you can't draw conclusions based on meaningless data.
Hold on there. Can you cite where Jesus promotes death penalty for anyone? He did not AFAIK ever promoted the death penalty.
Yes I can. Mathew 18:6 ““If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.”
I would look at atheism in the academy, not the general population. That’s where wokeism started.
The entire thesis of this argument rests on the assumption that "self-identification" is accurate - which is itself a woke decidedly unscientific way of conducting analysis. The woke concept of "woman" is a woman is anyone who says they are. One gets an entirely different picture of the US if the values people live and promote with their time and treasure are used to analyze if someone "is" Christian or not, as opposed to simply checking the box "Christian" for those who self-identify as such.
The surviving mainline Protestant churches are insufferably woke. The Evangelical ones aren’t.
I'm not sure I'd compeltely agree. It's because of that hyper-religiosity that Helen mentions that wokeism takes over. It might not be caused by atheism but many atheists never shrugged off religion, they just lost theism. I've said for a long time that religion is less of a theology and more of a psychology as I captured with woke ideology here: https://www.polymathicbeing.com/p/religion-as-a-psychology
That's a very good point. One might define religion as a belief system centered on deities, but that would exclude Buddhism. The essential thing about religions is the type of mind they inhabit, we see it most strongly in the fundamentalist zealot. But that same kind of mind is just as happy to become a fundamentalist zealot in the service of a political movement or many other 'causes' -- Greta's environmentalism, or the animal rights fanatics, or even devotion to a musical group.
Or the fundamentalist atheists, for that matter. Their religion could be called "Scientism" (to use a CS Lewis term)
That's my line of thought. I also don't see the US as unique in the west. We are a much more mixed back of tricks with our crazy diversity which creates polarization but I don't think the zealotry is unique.
There is a principle. Beautiful Principle. There is Reality.
Atheism - infact has cause wokeism. Wokeism is NOT a united states phenomenon. Wokeism is imported from European Philosophies, dervied from atheistic thinking AND relative truth - which you have even written a brilliant book on it (Cynical Theories)
In America, this became prominent because of incentive structures racism and diversity provides.
I'm from Asia. I'm a hard core atheist. Real hard core. However, there are three things Western Civilization should be worried about apart from Wokeism.
1) Islam : Not because it is inherently violent. Historically Christianity has been more violent. Islam in west, is like how fanatical early christianity used to be when that religion spread to Europe. People thronged to Christianity at that time, because it gave purpose, strong community in an ocean of freedom and joy
2) Decline of Christianity: It's NOT like I love christianity. Christianity has gone through major reform and it recognizes individual freedom more or less and compatible with Democracy. Islam is NOT. Muslims slowly ask for segregational practices in the name of respect
Wokeists becauae of oppressor/oppressed narrative sadly supports islam, ignoring it is second largest religion and there are 55 countries where majority are muslims.
Islam will ride on the wave of wokeism and both will defeat western civilization because they are fanatics.
History says answer to Fanaticism is even more fanaticism, which Christianity provides.
As a strong non-west, non-christian I root for christianty because it is reasonable in current form
"Islam : Not because it is inherently violent."
It is good to warn about Islam, but this is wrong. Islam IS inherently violent, because it is based on the words the fake prophet Mohammed put in Allah's mouth, and Mohammed was a violent man.
Mohammed was a warlord who led followers to raid caravans, attack other tribes, ordered murders, enslaved women and children, and in general used declarations to kill for his power. These attacks were the acts of bandits looking to plunder wealth of others. Mohammed invented 'revelations' to incite his followers to kill and steal for him.
Had Mohammed been just a warlord, no different from other violent thug leaders, his evil would have been gone with him. But he put "kill the unbelievers" into the Quran. He ordered the murder of his critics. He created verses that said husbands can beat their wives and warriors could rape captured women, and "Allah" approved. His calls for "Jihad" ie holy war, against "unbelievers" led to 1400 years of Islamic attacks, wars, and subjugation of others. Mohammed's example of beheading the 700 Banu Qurazay jews in Medina - a war crime - is something Hamas and ISIS Jihadists emulated in recent times.
The CORE of Islam is Quran and Mohammed's example, which is violent. that is why there is violence in Nigeria, Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, Israel/Palestine, Bangladesh, Pakistan ... and why there is oppression in Iran, Pakistan ... and why Islamic world lacks democracy, human rights, and women's rights. Islam is rotten at its core.
This is nothing like Christianity, whose core ethics is the Sermon on the Mount and the universal commandment to "love one another as you love yourself" any other religion deserve respect - Sikhs, Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc. But Islam was formed for conquest of others and then their subjugation.
Religion doesn't work like that.
Muslims don't see Mohammad as a warlord who ordered to kill people. They see him is a person who brought Allah's grace.
Islam as practised historically is a combination of several things. Bible (both New and Old,especially Old) had horrible verses too.
Christianity was historically violent NOT because of Sermon of the Mount obviously. It was violent because it labelled people as heretics, pagans, blasphemeres and "those going to hell"
If you think islam is inherently violent, you don't understand Islam and it will defeat you, because of your simpistic understanding.
Islam is totalitarian faith and Muslims consider themselves as slaves of Allah. In that slavery, some are good things and some are bad things
Your goal is to break that slavery to Allah. Your goal shouldn't be blaming Islam as violent.
"Your goal shouldn't be blaming Islam as violent."
This is not about goals, this is about the truth.
Mohammed put over 164 "Jihad" verses in the Quran during his lifetime, inciting followers to attack and kill non-muslims again and again.
2.216 "Fighting has been enjoined upon you while it is hateful to you. But perhaps you hate a thing and it is good for you; and perhaps you love a thing and it is bad for you. And Allah Knows, while you know not."
4.74] Therefore let those fight in the way of Allah, who sell this world's life for the hereafter; and whoever fights in the way of Allah, then be he slain or be he victorious, We shall grant him a mighty reward.
[Mohammed enticed his followers to fight by saying they will go straight to heaven and get 72 virgins forever]
[3.157]...if you are slain in the way of Allah...mercy is better [those who do Jihad and are killed are rewarded] than what they amass [what those who stay home from Jihad receive – no booty on earth and no perks in heaven]
"[8.65] O Prophet! urge the believers to war; if there are twenty patient ones of you they shall overcome two hundred, and if there are a hundred of you they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they are a people who do not understand"
Many Jihad verses referenced here:
https://answering-islam.org/Quran/Themes/jihad_passages.html
I agree that Islam is totalitarian. So were the Incan empire, but Inca empire didn't conquer and destroy others.
Islam is more than totalitarian; it is expansionistic and violent, with fundamentalist muslims, like Iran mullahs, believing in the Quranic verses that fighting to make the whole world under Islam is directed by God.
After Mohammed's death, the 'recipe' of constant fighting against "non-believers" led to Arab conquest by the sword in the next 100 years of much of the middle east, from Persia to Morocco. Jihad - war against non-muslims - is at the core of Islam. It's the truth, whether you deem it helpful or not in weaning mordern muslims from Islam or not.
"Religion doesn't work like that."
Every other religion don't work like that, but Mohammed's did.
By 635AD, Islamic rulers forced expulsion of the Jews and the Christians in AD 635 from the Arabian Peninsula - by the "Just" and so-called "Rightly Guided" Khalifa Umar Ibn Al Khattab, just 15 years after Mohammed came into Medina with only a handful of followers, allowed in by the peaceful Jewish tribes of Medina.
When Mohammed had no power in Mecca, his verses were just about his 'revelations' of mix of pagan, Christian and Jewish tales. But in Medina, he needed to acquire wealth, and found a way by having his muslims attack caravans and tribes, plundering and enslaving them. his power led him to incite his followers to attack even more, putting his attacks into the Quran. THAT is the problem.
"Muslims don't see Mohammad as a warlord who ordered to kill people. They see him is a person who brought Allah's grace."
That's the problem. Mohammed was in actual reality a caravan-raiding warlord who participated on no less than 70 attacks on other tribes and caravans, including the destruction of the 3 Jewish tribes of Medina - Bani , attacks on Quraysh caravans, and more. Mohammed used his claimed prophet status to gain power. The problem
is Hadith and Quranic verses that 'justifies' his actions. This twists the morality in Islam and corrupts it. Even Quranic verses that Mohammed got 20% of the loot.
"If you think islam is inherently violent" - I don't think that, it declares it itself.
It doesn't ask muslims to fight, it COMMANDS them to fight. Mohammed declared his own orders to attack others as the words of Allah:
Surah 2:216
Fighting has been enjoined upon you while it is hateful to you. But perhaps you hate a thing and it is good for you; and perhaps you love a thing and it is bad for you. And Allah Knows, while you know not.
Sura 9:29 says: "Fight (slay and kill) those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the last day (judgement day), nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor they follow the religion of truth (the religion of Islam) out of those who have been given the Book (Jews and Christians), until they pay the tax, in acknowledgment of superiority and (recognition that) they are in a state of subjection (to Islam).
If you don't understand how this is the root of Islam's 1400 years of violence on other religions, even up to today, when Jihadist terrorists yell "Allahu Akbar" and attack non-muslims, you understand nothing of Islam.
Sura 5:51 says: O ye who believe, take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors. They are but friends and protectors to each other, and he amongst you that turns to them for friendship is one of them Verily, Allah guideth not a people unjust (Jews and Christians).
Have you read the Old Testament by any chance? Not only are the tribes and the later kingdom rather fond of violence, but Hashem Himself is in there throwing down fire & brimstone, turning people to pillars of salt, and trolling the faithful when He wasn't cursing Amalek.
Regardless, Christianity has the worse track record by far. Modern Islamic fundamentalism was a predictable response to the establishment of a multinational Jewish state, by Western Christian fiat, on Muslim Arab lands.
You are at other end of the spectrum ignoring what islam has done historically.
That modern Islamic fundamentalism is response to Jewish state is exactly what Islamists want you to believe and you fell into the trap.
Have you forgotten, Arabic colonization, jizya, longest slavery conducted by Muslims, complete erasure of pre-islamic culture (so that there are no records of its brutality )? Tendency to impose sharia law, kashmir, chechenya, fundamentalism in Philippines etc ?
The self-proclaimed 'prophet' Mohammed committed the war crime of executing 700 men of the Jewish Bani Qurazay tribe 1400 years ago, kicking off 1400 years of genocide, Jizya, dhimmitude and attacks on Jews, Christians and others, long before Israel ever existed.
Have you read the New Testament by any chance?
Mohammed put over 160 "Jihad verses" calling on his followers to attack and kill 'non-believers', and called it the word of God. I challenge you to find anything similar in the Gospel.
Sura 9:29 says: "Fight (slay and kill) those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the last day (judgement day),..."
Whataboutism attacks on Christianity are both ignorant and mis-placed; it does not erase or absolve Mohammed's violence that he seeded into Islam.
There's nothing ignorant about it; Christianity erased history everywhere it went. The New Testament condemns nonbelievers to Hell, you know.
The state religion of the Roman empire and all of Europe throughout the Dark Ages to the Inquisition, colonialism, slavery, two world wars, corporate capitalism, and beyond? Yeah, I'm sure Christianity has nothing to answer for.
If you are clubbing random things to christianity for which it is NOT the primary cause, why don't you add similar random things such as scientific revolution, removal of poverty, destruction of slavery (remeber it was christian nations that went to battles and wars to end slavery although longest and probably largest slave trade was done by Muslims ), democracy, improvements in medicine, geographical and space exploration, getting people to interact on subsrack made possible by capitalism?
Funny how they blame all the ills of history on Christianity, yet won't give any credit to Christianity for birthing modern civilization itself, which grew out of Christendom.
Civilization vastly predates Christianity, and most of contemporary Western civilization's advances have been resisted by and made in spite of Christianity, not encouraged by it.
False. Western civilization is Christian civilization.
Excellent article, Helen, as always. I especially appreciate your point about how humans are unable to agree on belief systems and so inevitably splinter and break off from each other to establish new systems — hence the key importance of a building expectations of tolerance and pluralism into our social mores and institutions. We have quite a long way to go with that: it is ineffably difficult to think someone else’s weltanschauung is wrong or absurd, but respect all the same his autonomy and agency exactly as one expects one’s own to be accommodated. Also, I suspect that there are many more people who are interested in coming out on top in an argument than there are who would make basic liberal values their highest priority.
I can’t really believe that liberal values are another case of ‘nice idea, wrong species’ but I admit that a thought like that occurs to me sometimes. Your voice is one that encourages me not to dabble in such despair overmuch.
You are always a fascinating read!
This one misses the mark. I do sympathize with the 'non-woke atheists', as they don't want to be tarnished with any connection with wokeness. But clearly, wokeness is filling a spiritual void that atheism cannot satisfy. America was founded not upon orthodox Christian beliefs, but always a deistic nation, and 'deism' was long regarded as a variant of atheism. Read Matthew Stewart's book on this topic. Further, what exactly would 'orthodox Christianity' be, other than Catholicism? Protestantism is itself a heresy against the original Catholic faith. Our country was never accepting of Catholics unless they were denuded of the true faith (a'la Biden and Pelosi). Traditional Catholics are today the number one enemy of the American state.
No, when you actually understand our nation's founding, the fact that America is the center of wokeness makes 100% sense. Wokeness is a natural response to atheism. It takes the liberalized elements of the Christian West ("all are welcome, especially illegals", "love your neighbors, especially in a sexual way") and discards all the 'nasty' elements that go against liberalism. Atheists and liberals need to really ponder on this truth, as it does indeed speak to the failure of their ideology to fully grasp human nature. Ideology is a false god for genuine spirituality, and the woke are the canaries in the coal mine.
Atheism may not have caused wokeism, but the erosion of christianity created the space it inhabits, and the decades long attack on religion in the west, created a void in human life that most people were unable to fill individually.
Wokeism is a secular, non-theistic religion that provides moral strictures, hierarchical order, and the illusion of community. It was unrealistic for "The new atheist" to knock out the supports and expect the structure it supported to remain.
As a contributing audience member who nodded like a seal, I have to admit I was wrong.
Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens aren't solely to blame, but the "cultural Christian" Dawkins seems to have realized something catastrophic has happened.
More than a decade ago, Sam harris suggested it was a condecending elitist position to think that your average person needs what a faith tradition provides.
Rabbi Wolpe responded by saying "when you get rid of god you will find the world is not made up of Sam Harris."
Time has proven him wise.
Religious Jew here. I think you misunderstand Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s position here. (I presume you are responding to her.) No one sensible in the heterosphere is arguing for a Christian theocracy. Of course religious coercion just makes conflict worse. That is the story of Chanukah.
The real argument is that in the absence of *traditional* Christian (or Jewish) values and the structure this gives to people’s lives, people seek meaning elsewhere. And often in bad ways. Cults thrive when people lack purpose and structure.
I should add that the worst wokist abuses happen in religious communities infected by the woke mind virus. I have heard heartbreaking stories of families (some of them lesbian) pushed out of their reform synagogues or left-wing churches because they committed heresy by not affirming their trans-identifying daughter. This is because wokism has replaced traditional religion. This is a cultural disaster.
So yes it isn’t exactly that atheism caused wokism. It is more complicated. That’s why you have failed here by arguing with a straw man. I respect you too much Helen not to expect better than that from you.
Well said. The whole "Christian theocrat" argument is bogus. Progressives will complain about believers in restoring the American social and political traditions of USA pre-Obama. They act as if faith in God itself is "theocracy" Huh.
What it really speaks to is the totalitarian impulse in the left to stamp out dissenting non-progressive beliefs. When you consider progressivism AS the religion they hold to, it all makes sense.
I don’t think Helen has any totalitarian impulses. She is a true liberal. I think what’s happening here is a crisis of faith among heterodox atheists. Because they can see that the only other sensible people around seem to be traditional religious folks. And they always thought that religion was backward.
To be clear, I was not labelling Helen, but only those leftists of the 'cancel culture' variety, who are highly intolerant of non-progressive POV, such as you describe in your anecdote about families getting kicked out of synagogues for not affirming a trans child.
I was thinking of the people who cancelled Brendan Eich, the inventor of Javascript, driven from Mozilla by leftists over his support of traditional marriage. That was 2012, and since then its gotten much worse in some places. Those who consider religion 'backward' must see how this ideological intolerance / witchhunt behavior has all the flaws of established religion of old times and then some.
> I don’t think Helen has any totalitarian impulses.
However, she is serving as their useful idiot.
Agree. Woke churches are awful.
"Nobody is advocating for medieval attitudes to Christianity or making anybody believe anything.” Well, if you are not, you are speaking about a later form of Christianity softened by liberalism and rendered optional by liberal democracies"
I'm not convinced that follows. The earliest forms of Christianity seem pretty peaceful to me. The impulse to coerce belief appears to rise once the Church was aligned with the Empire under Constantine. It seems to me one could make an argument similar to yours against atheism itself (i.e., Atheism was the official position of the State in the Soviet Union. In the name of atheism Soviets coerced and abused others. Therefore, atheism = coercion.).
Am I missing some nuance in your argument?
Yes!
Thank you! The false choice people have been presenting has been really frustrating. It is great to have the examples you give as well, thank you for that!
Fuckin' based. “Twilight of the Idols” vibes.
Atheism did not cause Wokism. It simply left a hole within a religious population that was bound to be filled by something.
There are many substitutes for traditional religion: MAGA, Goop, Twin Flames, Consumerism, etc..
Woke is just the most popular.
Thank you for his, Helen! If there is a link between religion and wokeism I’ve also long suspected that it lies more in the degree of religiosity (and religious fervor) of a particular culture than any kind of substitution effect. My country of Sweden is both very secular and, in my opinion, significantly less woke than the U.S. and Canada. I’m not saying there isn’t insanity I’d like to see expunged from public institutions, but the situation is less dire than in many other places.
The US may still have a relatively high number of Christians, but the numbers have dropped in the years corresponding to the rise of Woke.
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/09/13/how-u-s-religious-composition-has-changed-in-recent-decades/pf_2022-09-13_religious-projections_01-01-png/
This drop is higher among Democrats than Republicans.
https://religionunplugged.com/news/2023/11/6/the-religious-composition-of-the-political-parties-over-the-last-50-years
Its weird how the same people who are eagle-eyed at pointing out the stupidity when wannabe radicals say "Marxism has never been tried" so they can write out of existence the history of its disasters who then think Christian Theocracy is a great idea given secularism rose in part because of the disaster that was muscular political religion in wrecking Europe. These neo-theocrats want to write out of history all the nastiness of Christianity as if they have suddenly found the ideas that no Christian for most of history would have recognized as being part of Christianity.