|
August 30, 2006
atheists with desperate souls
Via Glenn Reynolds, I was quite taken with Belmont Club Richard Fernandez's analysis of the role of religion in war: In those dark days faith, like freedom was sometimes just another name for nothing left to lose. And yet it was not altogether meaningless: it made the margin between victory and defeat.Such sustaining faith need not take the form of conventional religion. Unconventional religions will work, as will deeply held belief systems of any sort. But to hold something deeply there has to be something to hold. This is a point that the most calculating and cynical of atheists have recognized. I can't think of a better example than Joseph Stalin's literal resurrection of the Russian Orthodox Church he had sworn to destroy, and which he had nearly destroyed: Continuous persecution in the 1930s resulted in its near-extinction: by 1939, active parishes numbered in the low hundreds (down from 54,000 in 1917)But Russia in the 1940s, on the verge of losing everything to Nazi Germany, was in the midst of "times that try men's souls." All the more difficult for soulless Stalin and his equally soulless top Bolsheviks to face, for what can be worse the trying of a soul you don't believe in? Things couldn't have been bleaker. Atheist that he was, Stalin recognized that Communism couldn't possibly provide a sustaining faith for most ordinary Russians. He knew that unless he saw to it that God was solidly on their side, Russia would lose the war. And so the cynical, evil, godless Stalin held a meeting with the church hierarchs, and opened the churches: ...the Nazis’ obsession with the plan to wipe out this country as a nation turned the world war into a patriotic one. So it was natural that in a bid to overpower the enemy the nation turned to their imperial tradition and to Russian history. The Orthodoxy was the Russian man’s main spiritual basis. Stalin just couldn’t fail to realize this, so it is small wonder that he sought assistance from the Church during that dangerous period of time in this country’s history.There's even a book titled "Stalin's Holy War." Of course, Stalin's situation was utterly desperate, as was Russia's. Avoiding despair during desperate times will try anyone's soul. You don't even have to have one. MORE: Already I see that a commenter thinks I advocate embracing religious fanaticism. Actually, I was making a historical point. But to each his own. I should endeavor to be more open to misinterpretation. posted by Eric on 08.30.06 at 05:46 PM
Comments
Embrace religious fanaticism? I don't recall saying anything remotely like that. I'm a Pagan Christian Polytheist myself, and I can think of few people with a more jaundiced view of religion (including its dissembled variants). I thought I made a historical point about Stalin. But whatever, I guess. Eric Scheie · August 30, 2006 09:26 PM I was responding to the original comment from Richard Fernandez: "In those dark days, faith... made the margin between victory and defeat." I question the historical correctness of this claim. Erasmussimo · August 30, 2006 10:06 PM Another historical point, most of Stalin's work had been done for him by Peter the Great. When Peter TG tried to modernize Russia he found his three greatest enemies the boyars, the inertia of the peasantry, and the Russian Orthodox Church. He brutally broke the power of the Church so well it never again opposed the State--even the Bolshevik state. lee · August 30, 2006 11:22 PM Sorry, what's a Pagan Chrisitan? Adam · September 1, 2006 07:57 AM It's half true, half tongue in cheek, but it doubles my chances for persecution, depending on who cares: http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/002182.html In my experience, if you admit to belief in God, but don't think God is a limited concept or a book, you'll draw enmity more enmity from religious ideologues than if you said you were an atheist -- AND more enmity from atheists than if you identified as a religious ideologue. So I wouldn't admit to being an atheist even if I were one, nor would I admit to being a Christian if I were one. There are complex theological issues involved, of course, but I think religious debates tend to become a pointless and inflammatory waste of time. Eric Scheie · September 1, 2006 10:47 AM |
|
March 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2007
February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
War For Profit
How trying to prevent genocide becomes genocide I Have Not Yet Begun To Fight Wind Boom Isaiah Washington, victim Hippie Shirts A cunning exercise in liberation linguistics? Sometimes unprincipled demagogues are better than principled activists PETA agrees -- with me! The high pitched squeal of small carbon footprints
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Lemme get this straight: Western civilization is under threat from the religious fanatics of Islam, and the solution is to embrace religious fanaticism ourselves?
Doesn't make much sense to me. I think much of the success of Western civilization is due to its increasingly jaundiced view of religion.