The previous post began to stray into real world politics. I want to say now though, that I really believe Thanatism is a politically neutral faith. Although it is neutral, from what I’ve written already, you can see that it is certainly not politically benign. In order to demonstrate how it balances neutrality with definition, I’d like to discuss a bit of collusion between the right and the left that’s particularly relevant to Thanatism–something I refer to as, “Polite Society”.
Polite Society is the pact across the political spectrum to not talk about our core beliefs. At first blush, it appears to be an affirmation of individual liberty–no one ought to tell another what they should believe. Afterall, if our own beliefs aren’t sacred personal ground, what is? Although this sounds fine in principle, in reality, it’s not that simple. As we’ve learned, our actions flow from that which we hold as true in our core, and it is exactly these actions that are the subject of public concern. More importantly, we’ve learned that our social structures emanate from our own core values, and anything that determines the social structures that we all must live in, must be subject to public debate.
The point being, if we implicitly ban core beliefs from public discussion, we shall find that we never get to the root of many issues of disagreement when it comes to public policy. This unwillingness to discuss the personal roots of our public issues, is the fruit of polite society. And as I said before, this polite society is a conspiracy across the political spectrum. The left and the right merely use it in different ways.
Take for example, the left’s unwillingness to use the term, “Islamic terrorism”. The left would say that we ought not use this term because most muslims are peaceful, and further, much of what promotes terrorist thinking from these countries is their impoverished conditions, which are in no small part a consequence of policies carried out by the West. Be this as it may, to imply that the faith of the perpetrators of religious wars plays little role in their violence doesn’t do justice to the power of their beliefs. Take it from a former fundamentalist, those who choose to murder others for religious reasons don’t do so nominally–they do so because they are living their faith without contradiction.
A parallel demand from the right is its insistence that schools teach the theory of creationism alongside that of the theory of evolution. The very idea that our educational institutions should treat a scientific theory, supported by nearly endless data that has been subject to exhaustive peer review, the same as a theory written down by primitive people who were making the first human attempts to understand our world is absurd.
Both of these examples of polite society impoverish our ability to form policy. They both rest on an agreed assumption that we don’t have a right as a society to suggest that anyone’s core belief might be subject to error. Although I’m deeply sympathetic to the argument that individuals should have a right to believe what they want, when such beliefs impact the rights of others, they must become the subject of open and honest discussion.
Further, I might suggest that the universality of people’s willingness to exempt our core beliefs from honest public discussion is less a matter of protecting individual liberty, and more a matter of each of us protecting our right to turn away from that which we least want to accept. We don’t want to be questioned about our core beliefs, because we know that if we held them out publicly, they would be exposed as private defences against the painfully public reality that we shall all one day die.
Once again, this is what makes Thanatism such a powerful core belief, not only for us as individuals, but also for society as a whole. Thanatism doesn’t require us to accept a belief that can’t be talked about publicly. It doesn’t ask us to believe something that can’t withstand public scrutiny. Just the opposite–it simply asks us to accept what is a statistical, legal, and utterly public certainty. As such, it can stand as a foundation for public policy and can undermine the endless cycle of disagreement perpetuated by the false premise that respecting another person prevents us from questioning their beliefs. Rather, Thanatism explicitly forces these very beliefs into the realm of public discussion because it is exactly our core beliefs that have public ramifications.
I suspect the above will be one of my least popular posts. Nothing invites public derision like claiming that both the right and left are conspiring to hide the truth. Further, society’s concern to protect our right to believe is absolutely justified, as we have too many times experienced in the past the evil perpetrated by totalitarianism’s thought police. We must admit that there is inherent violence in any totalizing faith–Thanatism included, and that this must be guarded against with the greatest vigor.
But make no mistake, any attempt to exempt core beliefs from public scrutiny will end in exactly what we have today–a world divided. And although there are without doubt fantastic historical reasons to resist any belief that aspires to sit on the throne, ultimately, whether we freely choose that belief or not, that throne will be occupied. Better that we discuss which belief best deserves that place of privilege, rather than forbid this discussion altogether, for it is precisely because of the power of our core beliefs, that they are the ones we most insistently must bring forth into the realm of public discourse.