I listened to a program on NPR today. I did not hear all of it, but it sounded like it was by a man who either pretended to be a Mormon, or who had once been a Mormon and left the church. A further part of it was by a woman who had been part of an evangelical church choir. It was a very fine choir, but a requirement to participate was an acceptance of 'Jesus in your heart', and conformity with significant rehearsal, dress and behavioral requirements. In the course of these two segments, the man spoke about how he 'tried to maintain a progressive attitude', and how the idea of owning his wives was foreign to him. The woman's story contrasted the stern discipline of the choir with her breaking out of the lineup at a store to help a man in a wheelchair up a ramp.
Neither of these stories painted religion in a kind light. Mormonism is easy to dislike, even for the religious. Fundamentalism is similarly easy to dislike as judgmental rather than loving. The two segments got me thinking, however, about disciplines.
The values of the US, and much of the western world, were based in Judeo-Christian religious rules prior to the mid-60s. Sex outside of marriage was morally wrong, as was adultery. Childbearing outside of marriage was stigmatizing. Respect was shown, at least broadly speaking, to authority in the form of police, government and the military. A religious grounding was the norm; those not attending church or expressing atheism were outside the mainstream of values even in large cities. The (largely empty) shells of churches in New York, London and other cities bear witness to this.
The social changes of the 60s changed this. Sexual activity prior to marriage became normalized. Divorce rates soared. Church attendance fell. Respect for the military, in part because of opposition to Vietnam, fell dramatically. One well-documented example of changing values is the rate of single motherhood. Childbirth outside of marriage skyrocketed. Here is the data-
year single motherhood, total single motherhood, Black
1960 9% 22%
1968 31%
2006 28% 56%
2014 34% 72%
Fathers are now considered optional, despite data to the contrary.
In listening to the NPR program I don't have sympathy for repressive or exploitational religion. My question, however, is 'what values have replaced Judeo-Christian restraints'? Is this a world where the only rule is 'there are no rules'? There is emphasis on 'fairness', openness, inclusion, equal pay, etc, but no moral foundation on which to support these ideas. The moral tenets of every of every religion are similar. All of them are based on Law handed down from some emanation or incarnation of God. St. Amselm's Dialectic Proof of God argues that since every person can conceive of a being greater than themselves, this is God. This model of law source, while old, also has much experiential data to support it. It is dangerous to rely on the better nature of others; they may not have one. Just so if we base social order on 'innate fairness' or 'natural law'. It is well to remember that carnality wins almost every time. In a discussion at a Unitarian church the group was asked what each person's source of moral authority was. Every single person except me said it was their own conscience .
This brings me to discipline. Today's social construct has suspicion and contempt for most forms of discipline, whether Marines, monks, athletes, or the religiously observant. Most people look at these groups and roll their eyes at the haircuts, dietary rules, sexual restraint, etc, etc. Discipline is indeed hard; however, it is worth looking at the result of discipline versus personal conscience.
There are five physical joys in life- sex, drugs, liquor, food and cigarettes. Except for cigarettes, whose use has declined substantially since 1960, every other pleasure is being fully indulged. We are eating huge portions of horrible foods. Drug use is much more common, and more dangerous. The sexual results are plain in single motherhood, also in rates of STDs. Alcohol is perennially popular. We worry about the national results of our indulgences, speaking of 'epidemics' of obesity, drug deaths, STDs and single motherhood, without ever asking why they are happening.
Discipline is typically derided as a needless denial of pleasure, but that is wrong, both regarding results and concept. The difference between a fit person and an obese, unconditioned one is exercise and dietary restraint, between a stable relationship and instability so commonly sexual and substance restraint. And, just as a temper cannot be gotten rid of by losing it, an appetite is not lost by satiating it. Indulgence dulls the soul and so typically destroys the body.
It is better to fill the soul while disciplining self. We abandoned churches and 'traditional' morality, and claim this is good because at the same time we ended overt racial and sexual oppression. But one has little to do with the other. A return to disciplines does not imply a return to prejudice. Discipline of self does not mean a license to condemn others.
There are many kinds of discipline, and whether found in the military, or church , or eastern disciplines, they are all the same. Adherence to the discipline is more important than indulgence of the body. The ultimate expression of this is the irrelevance of death. Western fascination with youth and fear of death is based on a belief that the body and its appearance and indulgence are important. They are not important. Like the Fox in The Little Prince, that which is essential is invisible to the eye. Discipline tames the body and fills the soul. Perhaps one day our society will again realize this.
Ted
Neither of these stories painted religion in a kind light. Mormonism is easy to dislike, even for the religious. Fundamentalism is similarly easy to dislike as judgmental rather than loving. The two segments got me thinking, however, about disciplines.
The values of the US, and much of the western world, were based in Judeo-Christian religious rules prior to the mid-60s. Sex outside of marriage was morally wrong, as was adultery. Childbearing outside of marriage was stigmatizing. Respect was shown, at least broadly speaking, to authority in the form of police, government and the military. A religious grounding was the norm; those not attending church or expressing atheism were outside the mainstream of values even in large cities. The (largely empty) shells of churches in New York, London and other cities bear witness to this.
The social changes of the 60s changed this. Sexual activity prior to marriage became normalized. Divorce rates soared. Church attendance fell. Respect for the military, in part because of opposition to Vietnam, fell dramatically. One well-documented example of changing values is the rate of single motherhood. Childbirth outside of marriage skyrocketed. Here is the data-
year single motherhood, total single motherhood, Black
1960 9% 22%
1968 31%
2006 28% 56%
2014 34% 72%
Fathers are now considered optional, despite data to the contrary.
In listening to the NPR program I don't have sympathy for repressive or exploitational religion. My question, however, is 'what values have replaced Judeo-Christian restraints'? Is this a world where the only rule is 'there are no rules'? There is emphasis on 'fairness', openness, inclusion, equal pay, etc, but no moral foundation on which to support these ideas. The moral tenets of every of every religion are similar. All of them are based on Law handed down from some emanation or incarnation of God. St. Amselm's Dialectic Proof of God argues that since every person can conceive of a being greater than themselves, this is God. This model of law source, while old, also has much experiential data to support it. It is dangerous to rely on the better nature of others; they may not have one. Just so if we base social order on 'innate fairness' or 'natural law'. It is well to remember that carnality wins almost every time. In a discussion at a Unitarian church the group was asked what each person's source of moral authority was. Every single person except me said it was their own conscience .
This brings me to discipline. Today's social construct has suspicion and contempt for most forms of discipline, whether Marines, monks, athletes, or the religiously observant. Most people look at these groups and roll their eyes at the haircuts, dietary rules, sexual restraint, etc, etc. Discipline is indeed hard; however, it is worth looking at the result of discipline versus personal conscience.
There are five physical joys in life- sex, drugs, liquor, food and cigarettes. Except for cigarettes, whose use has declined substantially since 1960, every other pleasure is being fully indulged. We are eating huge portions of horrible foods. Drug use is much more common, and more dangerous. The sexual results are plain in single motherhood, also in rates of STDs. Alcohol is perennially popular. We worry about the national results of our indulgences, speaking of 'epidemics' of obesity, drug deaths, STDs and single motherhood, without ever asking why they are happening.
Discipline is typically derided as a needless denial of pleasure, but that is wrong, both regarding results and concept. The difference between a fit person and an obese, unconditioned one is exercise and dietary restraint, between a stable relationship and instability so commonly sexual and substance restraint. And, just as a temper cannot be gotten rid of by losing it, an appetite is not lost by satiating it. Indulgence dulls the soul and so typically destroys the body.
It is better to fill the soul while disciplining self. We abandoned churches and 'traditional' morality, and claim this is good because at the same time we ended overt racial and sexual oppression. But one has little to do with the other. A return to disciplines does not imply a return to prejudice. Discipline of self does not mean a license to condemn others.
There are many kinds of discipline, and whether found in the military, or church , or eastern disciplines, they are all the same. Adherence to the discipline is more important than indulgence of the body. The ultimate expression of this is the irrelevance of death. Western fascination with youth and fear of death is based on a belief that the body and its appearance and indulgence are important. They are not important. Like the Fox in The Little Prince, that which is essential is invisible to the eye. Discipline tames the body and fills the soul. Perhaps one day our society will again realize this.
Ted
Comments
Post a Comment