| Changing times | ||
| We live in changing times. Hardly a novel observation: it could have been made at any point throughout human history. There have been social changes over the centuries which have reflected differences both superficial and fundamental. The way that people dress or present themselves has changed vastly over the years, depending on wealth and fashion. In my youth, you might have seen a small tattoo on a labourer’s arm or an anchor on the arm of a sailor. Nowadays we see extensive tattoos on both women and men, inked designs which will expand and contract with muscle size and how tubby or scraggy they become in later years. Not only that, but piercings in all sorts of positions on people’s bodies, such as were only seen on people in places like the Polynesian islands, are now commonplace - but without the ‘spiritual’ significance of the originals. Gyms are the new temples, no longer just for athletes, but now also for office workers, with 10,000 steps as the new religion. In the past, kings and princes wanted to prove their position outside the scope of the rules applicable to ordinary people by, for example, having a multitude of mistresses and, therefore, children. That has seemingly reappeared with today’s billionaire class, as exemplified by Elon Musk. He wants to have produced a ‘legion of children before the apocalypse’. He is already known to have 14, produced with a number of lady friends, with rumours of many more hidden from view by non-disclosure agreements. If though he truly anticipates an apocalypse, I wonder why he’d want to expose so many of his own children to its dreadful effects. But then I’m not sure that normal moral guidelines feature in his way of thinking. Instead, he seems to be thinking that the average IQ of the world should be increased, and that he can contribute to this by donating his genes to the cause. He’s going to have to work very hard to make a measurable difference. But a lack of moral guidelines is, I’m afraid, a very common denominator in our new world order. I accept of course that a social morality is not a top-down system. There is no presumption of a god who defines how we should act. It is instead the result of how we live our lives as a society, the limits we are prepared to observe, the sorts of actions we feel compelled to engage in or refuse to engage in as a result of social pressure. It evolves, but its evolution is normally rather like biological change. The punctuated equilibrium theory of evolution describes how change usually occurs at a relatively slow pace, but occasionally speeds up, mainly where there is a significant environmental change. Mammals took over from the dinosaurs as the dominant species when a big asteroid collided with the earth and created conditions no longer suited to the much larger animals. But then the pace of change tends to slow down again, allowing alterations in our ecological systems tending towards a state of relative equilibrium. Now, however, its seems that we are at an inflexion point in our morality. There is pressure to accept change to it at a rate and in a direction which goes radically against what has been our accepted way of living, our morality. An allusion, you might think, to the cataclysmic effect of the new order in America. And you would be right. I have been concerned for some time about the willingness of Christians in the USA to support the right wing there. It is a form of political thought which ought to be seen as antithetical to the faith described in the Bible – even its Trumpian edition. But no, the prospect of creating a quasi-theocracy is proving too attractive at a time when American churches, particularly on the Pentecostalist wing, are saying that the Second Coming of Christ is nigh (...yet again). Granted my background, I’m surprised to find myself thinking that the catholic church under the guidance of Pope Francis was relatively rational – or at least more in line with what the bible actually teaches. That he should have to explain the parable of the Good Samaritan to J D Vance is quite extraordinary. That Vance should have sought twisted justification for the vicious treatment of immigrants from the thinking of St Augustine and St Anselm about the ‘ordo amoris’ is equally extraordinary. Clearly we do in practice look after those nearest to us more than those with whom we have little contact. That is a matter of sheer practicality. But if we see someone in need outside our usual circle of family and friends, do we walk on by? I don’t think that’s what the Good Samaritan did. I don’t think that’s how most people would react, whether religious or not. At least, that what I used to think. With the rise of the right wing, both in the States, in Europe and here, I’m having doubts. Should I have refused to make a donation to Comic Relief citing the ‘ordo amoris’? Attacks on the institutions of public life in the USA continue and expand. There appears to be a disconnection between MAGA supporters and the Courts, Congress and the Colleges. They are not trusted or seen as guardians of the people’s rights. Instead for MAGA man and woman they have become the target. They are seen as being somehow parts of the ‘deep state’. Trump is praised by his supporters because he acts firmly against what they see as vested interests in these institutions, not seeing that Trump has the greatest of all vested interests and is ripping them off royally. Neither do they see that his other praised quality – his flexibility – is merely an inevitable response to the initial idiocy of the decisions taken by him. Federal funding for research has become contingent upon the politics of MAGA. Institutions are having funding withdrawn because their research might possibly contradict doctrines about vaccines and other pet obsessions held by their health secretary, R F Kennedy jnr, or the view of El Supremo himself on climate change: “Get rid of your windmills!” As the New York Times told us this week, a federal prosecutor in Washington has even contacted the New England Journal of Medicine, considered the world’s most prestigious medical journal, with questions that suggested, without evidence, that it was biased against certain views and influenced by external pressures. At least three other respected journals have received similar letters. The publications are accused of being “partisans in various scientific debates” and have been asked a series of accusatory questions about bias and the selection of research articles. Do they accept submissions from scientists with “competing viewpoints”? What do they do if the authors whose work they published “may have misled their readers”? Are they transparent about influence from “supporters, funders, advertisers and others”? The information published in such medical journals is protected by the Constitution. They mostly have the same rights that apply to newspapers - the strongest the Constitution provides. Instead, the letters appear to be aimed at creating an atmosphere of fear which could persuade scientists to say nothing rather than risk losing their jobs. The Stalinist methodology is still alive and well. We shall have to hope that the Trump economic plan will fail quickly rather than slowly. It is the only way in which all this madness can possibly be ended. And even then, there will remain the true believers...and their stupid hats. 28 April 2025 Paul Buckingham |
||
|
|