9/11 Civil Religion, difference, and Fear

(I in part have waited to post these thoughts because I did not want to step upon peoples genuine grief, even so what i have to say here probably remains incomprehensible and unpalatable to at least some. LEK)
It turns out this was the first of a trilogy of posts. The second in this series can be found here, in Things Gothic and priestlygoth.org, when the third post is finished it will be linked to here in Ecclesial Longings.

I live in a diverse neighborhood in Chicago, and am part the the interfaith religious association (Edgewater Community Religious Association, ECRA, though its regular participants are mostly mainline Christian congregations with a Synagogue, and an Ismaili Center who are regular participants, there are other members but I have never seen them at meetings.) in the neighborhood.  Our new alderman asked us to take part in 9/11 neighborhood commemoration he and the alderman from the neighboring ward that also covers part of Edgewater were planning.  The alderman and ECRA were in agreement that the emphasis should be as we commemorate on moving forward in coming together as a diverse community.  I was hesitant about participating in such a commemoration but with the emphasis ECRA was encouraging it seemed to be positive.   Also, we wisely chose not to give even our inter-religious imprimatur upon the proceedings by turning down the offer to give an interfaith invocation at the commemoration. We limited our involvement to saying this pledge:

"We of __________ pledge to help make Edgewater

(may want to broaden this for Pat O'Connor's Ward)

a place of justice and security for all."

"We pledge to make Edgewater a place of opportunity

and safety for everyone."

"We pledge to help make Edgewater a place where all

can worship, work and re-create in peace."

It didn't occur to me that even using this form wasn't so much about diversity as such, but a diversity conformed to a unity.  In a context that opened with the pledge of allegiance to the U.S. flag (which I stood at attention for but refused to recite), our pledge of embrace (of diversity?) conformed to  a pledge of unity that obscured our particularity and difference.  In the end for all the talk of diversity even at the commemoration itself, what I was left with was the uni-vocal stamp of the Nation State that we in a civil religious ceremony bowed our selves before in hopes that our particularity would be respected.  However it was at the price, we gave up our ability to be truly other even to the Nation State and its Religious  aspirations of the American character to which we in our diversity were to pay tribute.  

In the moment I wished I had suggested we not say a pledge but make a commitment creating a space fo opportunity and safety where all can worship work and re-create in peace.  Rather, what happened is that we had to first conform to a unity and the logic of the Nation State, to truly form a unity out of our diversity that remains diverse and other.  I wished for in that moment was a unity that is not sameness, or conformity to the ideology of a Nation State even one that has the ideal in its ideology of liberty and justice for all.

I am a citizen of the United States of America, I will live at peace and obey its laws, but I do not give it my allegiance, for I bow my head and give my heart to only one sovereign, and that aint any Nation state, government or unity of Nation States.

Neither do I value difference for difference sake, but our attempts at unity in diversity, demand something I see as only being able to be given to God.  

The logic of the Nation-State attempts to create sameness out of a diversity, by telling everyone within a particular arbitrary border that they all share the same ideology and character, no matter what they feel or their diverse origins.  It is a fiction created to enforce order, which admitedly can be 

beneficial.  However, it is at the price of our ability to remain other and different.  In some sense the Nation State is built upon the fear of otherness and actual diversity.  For some reason David Bowie's I'm Affraid of Americans seems relevant here:

Do we in fact fear otherness that refuses our view and structuring of the world.  Is this perhaps not the essential logic of the Nation State and any character of a nation to fear what is not of its character and ideology and to thus produce fear of itself in others.

Corporation or Governement, or....?

My friend Jeremy over atGlassdimly tweeted this article about Tea Party rhetoric last week. The author makes the interesting observation that one could replace in most instances "Government" with "Corporations" and the rhetoric makes sense and according to the author would actually get it right and be a movement one could get behind. The assumption here though is that we need government even big government to keep corporations at bay and in check. What is assumed is that our lives simply need to be and will be dominated by large impersonal entities: Government (the State, Nation/State) or corporations. It is true that we are so dominated. In my last post here, I conclude with wondering if we could spend our energy on alternative ways of existing, living and making a living. This post wants to channel our anger, our reforms into supporting the State and pushing the State to curtail corporations. But can we turn our imaginations to both? Can we say no to both forms of impersonal distant entities that seek to tell us how to live and wish us to exist as good workers and/or good citizens. Is it true that the only possible means to curtail corporations is another Goliath? Is Leviathan the only counter to the Corporate Goliath? Follow these metaphors and perhaps we have an answer. I have little faith in either giants of our age to truly care. Sate and Corporation should have limits and they should be human ones, humans not other impersonal institutions, not merely rules and regulations and laws. This article about a small artisonal creamery that ran afoul a state regulator applying regulations intended for larger mass operations where bacteria on fresh strawberries is a real issue, should cause us pause. This is perhaps is a cautionary tale of a reliance on Government and a world dominated by Corporations: A regulator seeks to apply the law, which currently makes no distinction between size of opperation. What protects in one instance keeps something good from being produced in another. I'm also here not against all regulation, or advocating no role of Government, but questioning how we think of this, and in ways that make a necessity of the State that as our caretaker. What is the relationship between the rise of the larger corporation and large government? Why have we accepted that we need corporations to provide us with say ice cream. It seems we have come to believe that we can't survive and live without large Government and the large corporation. I think this should be challenged. Whether or not the Tea Party is so challenging certainly is questionable. However, I do find it interesting that the corporation that is behind this doesn't present itself as a larger impersonal corporation. Rather the Koch brothers are the image of this corporation. To such an extent that it is hard to believe that Koch industries is this massive operation. Cynically (most likely) the Koch corp understands something important, that people respond to the personal touch, even if it is simulated. Thus as I see it its not that the Tea Party could switch its target and get it right. but that our dependence on corporations and the State is what should be our target. A State as caretaker and defender of the poor is perhaps not in fact the sort of power we want to give to any large bureaucratic institution. By the same token depending on large corporations to bring us our food and other necessities of life and depending on them to provide our income and living is also not the wisest nor most satisfying way to live. Granted in our time and place Corporations will employ a large number of us and we will consume the products they provide, and to that extent we may need the State to step in, but simultaneously some of us should perhaps seek to live an alternative existence and as much energy as we spend pitting the State against Corporations and into regulations etc. should be put into creating these alternative local spaces of personhood and true humanity.