The Guilt of the Governed

Would people rather feel guilty than powerless?

I finished reading a fascinating book earlier this month. It was called "Adam, Eve, the Serpent and the Garden of Eden" and was written by Elaine Pagels, a professor of early Christian history at Princeton University. It explores the effects of the evolution of the early Christian faith and Church on the sexual attitudes of Christians in particular, and thereby western society in general.

She does a lot of finger-pointing for the repressed sexual attitudes at the feet of one St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo during the late fourth and early fifth centuries, based upon his campaigning for the origins and transfer of original sin. The reason I mention this is because Pagels goes one step further and explores the question: why would a civilization allow itself to be pushed into a theology that believes sexual urges and intercourse are evil, and therefore should be repressed and avoided whenever possible? That is an interesting question.

True, by St. Augustine's time, the Roman Catholic Church was on a roll, having recently been adopted by Emperor Constantine as the Rome's official state religion. But still, you can use what ever means you want to try to control people, but it doesn't mean it will work. The very existence of the Church is more than evidence enough, having survived centuries of persecution at the hands of their benefactors in Rome and Constantinople. Why would the people allow themselves to be herded in this direction? Dr. Pagels' theory is this: because, in general, people would rather feel guilty than powerless.

Interesting concept, which is I'm typing this and why you are reading it.

Just a little more religion to finish up the theory, then we'll get down to business. According to Dr. Pagels, St. Augustine's reasoning was, original sin; Adam and Eve's expulsion from the Garden of Eden, and the accompanying sin created by it, is passed from human to human via semen. Hence, the Virginal birth by Mary allowed God to enter humanity in the form of Jesus, free from original sin. The rest of us, however, are screwed. Because humanity is burdened with this sin, we've polluted nature itself, and we can never achieve total communion with God, but instead are doomed to roam the earth, controlled by the state, which is guided by the Church. Yada yada yada. On this last part, she looses me a little bit, because if we are doomed, then we are powerless. But I probably misread some of her reasoning.

So while I may not buy Dr.Pagels' theory itself, I nevertheless believe the statement itself is sound thinking. Lets apply a few examples, shall we?

Global warming. Created by mankind's love affair with oil. We did it, and if we don't fix it - and soon - we will all die because of it. I've studied some evidence on global warming, and while I'm not convinced that it even exists, I know the data used by environmentalist is deeply flawed. I don't believe you can extrapolate 60 years worth of data, and apply it to a world, hundreds of millions of years old. So why do activist insist its happening? Because if we didn't create global warming, then we are powerless to do anything about it. Therefore, its easier to accept that it's our fault, feel guilty about it, and endure whatever costs necessary to stop it. People would rather believe they are guilty than powerless. Works on this one.

Global war on terror. The only reason there are terrorists is because we in the west, and the United States in particular, have done them some wrong in the past, and they only want to get even. If we hadn't messed with them, then there would never have been a terrorist problem. Forget the fact that the vast amount of death and destruction caused by terrorists are acts by Muslims against their fellow Muslims, its our fault. Because if it is our fault, then all we need do is to make them feel whole again, and they will stop it. But if we can't make their cheeks all rosy and glowing with happiness, the alternative is a large region of the world that will continue to produce people who believe it's their destiny to kill non-Muslims.

How about poverty? Part of the human condition and so will always be with us? Not a chance jack. We did it by allowing evil corporations to pillage the world's resources for their own gain, at the expense of the poor, exploited, unwashed masses. Since we created poverty, we can fix it by sucking all the profits out of the free market and redistributing it to the poor, from whom it was stolen.

Now if I were a complete cynic, I might say that liberal politicians, lobbyists and activists have already figured out this theory. And they use it to try to sway uneducated (on the specifics of issues) voters to grant them power, so they can fix all these evils created by us hairless monkeys.

There is another aspect I'd like to ponder as well. I have no evidence to back up the assumptions I'm about to make, other than my lifetime of experiences, but I'd be willing to wager the vast majority of liberals are either atheists, agnostics, or not truly seriously religious people. I'd also be willing to wager the opposite of conservatives. They tend to be Church-goers. Liberals tend to believe we humans are in the process of destroying the world and all its inhabitants, so they must achieve power at any cost in order to put things in order before its too late. Conservatives tend to be of the position that things aren't nearly as bad as liberals believe, and they don't need anyone to fix things for them - or telling, them what to do.

So here's my theory. People who have tendencies to be more religious - not just show off religious (i.e. the REV. Jesse Jackson), but really depend on their faith - put their faith in God, and therefore aren't as afraid of the unknown future. We're in God's hands. Those who put less faith in their faith, tend to be of the flavor who insist that only a big, all encompassing government, seeing to all our wants and needs, can save us.

Just some food for thought.

Editor's note: Not being religious, or a believer in government (much less so than the majority of those who would label themselves as religious), I perhaps serve as a counter-example to the author's claim. However, it does seem fairly uncontroversial that those who consider themselves conservative appear to regard religion as having a more important place in their life than those on the left. Based on the current administration, the religion angle is more outward than in recent memory, although they also seem to be fans of very big government. Perhaps people, regardless of what religion they hold, should have more faith in themselves, to live their life free from the dictates of others. I have a dream!