Indeed, ditto, hear hear.
To everyone.
Religion has driven the defeat of capitalism. Look - please at least glance in order to understand - at the most recent awful and hideous National Review which again goes to painstaking efforts to excorciate Ayn Rand. In fact, I’ll make a post on that later because there’s a specific point I think needs to be made in response.
The pseudo-concepts of religion are a problem. Let me offer an example (a big one): the idea that fate works in man’s favor. This just isn’t true, and it leads to an awful lack of attention to detail in reality. However, accepting this notion on faith allows a person to fully consider what they might do if fate were to work out in their favor. This allows them to plan for the better world before it can be seen. In other words, it allows for integration to occur without a full understanding of the epistemological principles involved.
Remember that even Ayn Rand didn’t expect everyone to be able to understand philosophy. A special class of intellectuals - according to the principle of division of labor - would study the science of ethics and philosophy, and pass down/along simplified principles to the rest of society. The goal is to reform that class.
One way to reform that class is to defeat the factors that enable the mystics to inhabit that class. Religious mystics have long since been excluded from the top tiers of the intellectual class. The secular mystics are the problem. One way to defeat them is to erode their base of support in the public, by eroding the barriers they place on society’s intellectual framework.
Pseudo-concepts can serve as scaffolding, or bridges, over these barriers. The idea is that they connect good concepts to other good concepts. They make inaccessible good concepts available.
Glenn Beck is a great example of where things are headed. I simply can’t imagine his ratings rising more than what they are. I can imagine him continuing to erode the ratings of his competitors by undercutting their moral arguments - even if he has to appeal to pseudo-concepts in order to do so. In the end, the result is a vacuum - which we need to fill.
Vacuums can be dangerous - read ‘Ominous Parallels’. But part of why I’m glad Beck is the man doing what he’s doing is that his ilk - his followers - are the sort to reject a vacuum. They’ll continue to demand a certain integrity from their intellectual leaders. It might be a while before they can move beyond their religious worldview, I can conceive of a deistic approach that might work, but in the end I see no evidence to suggest that their political aspirations will be all that damaging.
They’ll never let the Catholics in their ranks install a monarch, nor will the Catholics allow an Evangelical takeover of the moral sphere. There’s too much diversity, and America’s history has provided too strong a basis for common cause: freedom of religion, and a source of prosperity through liberty. That’s ultimately what Beck’s message seems to be about.
Again, I think the right response has been mentioned often. I don’t endorse Beck, but I will defend him against the unfair criticisms leveled by the Left. I am also happy to join in the effor to erode the moral/cultural dominance of the Left in the public sphere. I will also continually advocate from within Beck’s ‘movement’ against the religious emphasis. I will point out where that emphasis, and my values come to a common understanding.
I don’t think a religionist would ever accept my values, but they would accept me as an ally, and have a greater respect for me, and a greater willingness to make concessions to me, if I point out what we have in common.
Beck isn’t the enemy: National Review is the enemy. Jonah Goldberg isn’t the enemy: Conrad Black is the enemy.
The world needn’t be split into one grand dichotomy. Elements of Beck’s movement are bad, but most elements are good against the worst element of my worst enemies. This isn’t a pragmatism, because I don’t want to make any concessions to Beck. (EDIT: any concessions on core values, I mean)
Conceding that people have a right to pseudo-concepts is permissible, so long as I ensure than they will not interfere with my right to reject those same pseudo-concepts.
Take that literally. So long as there is agreement that NO LAW (Sharia or otherwise!) be involved with respect to religion, people with right leaning politics can stand on some common ground, whether they privately choose “faith,” or not.