Much of what is discussed in T&ST concerning the transfer of sacred from the church to the state is reminiscent of Cavanaugh's The Myth of Religious Violence, which was published (I believe) last year.
-The discomfort at the thought of someone dying on behalf of their religion ("were they stable?") as opposed to the relative comfort with which we react when someone dies for the state.
-A thought experiment: the disgust and sense of atrocity we feel (and rightly so) when someone kills in the name of their religion as opposed to the relative comfort we have at the idea of killing for the state.
-The general opposition: things done for religion are "irrational"; things for the state, "rational".
In general we are much more comfortable with the state. We don't think about it much. Very few of us fret about the state in the same way we fret about "religion". Thus the state in its assumed obviousness ("what else would there be?") gets away, quite literally, with murder.
Here it is frankly: an F-16 will do a much better job of saving your ass than a crucified Jew. The Jerusalem on high is not armed. It offers no protections from the things which we most wish to be protected against. Its sole ruler (not even elected, mind you) is victorious only in light of the defeat of everything we hold dear.
If you are a betting man, bet on the state.
No comments:
Post a Comment