http://directionstoorthodoxy.org/mod/fo ... ead_id=168
FORCLOSURE: THE DOORWAY FOR THE DEMON OF SECULARISM
Fr. George Morelli, Ph.D.
Code: Select all
In society today a hidden psychological process has taken hold. Instead of ‘reality testing” the content of whatever message is being conveyed, the listeners allow the deliverer of the messages to usurp their cognitive potential. One psychologist, has described this as a dysfunctional cognition option (typical of an arrested adolescent level of cognition) called “Foreclosure” (Erikson 1963, Marcia, 1966) This developmental stage never goes through a personality [cognitive] reorganization. They take identity patterns [cognition] from significant others. “My ‘significant other’ believes this so I do I.” Political correctness is just such “jargon” and foreclosure. On the other hand, individuals who achieve “identity achievement” [an advanced cognitive level] have “thought over” all the facts. What is devious and cunning is no stranger to the “evil one” who confronted our first parents, Jesus Himself, and our holy desert fathers, every saint the church has produced and all mankind made in His image especially as they try to approach sanctity in Christ. . C.S. Lewis (1961) in his famous work The Screwtape Letters, describes this so well. He has the senior supervising devil telling the devil-novice: “Jargon, not argument, is your best ally in keeping him from the Church. Don't waste time trying to make him think that materialism is true! Make him think it is strong, or stark, or courageous -- that it is the philosophy of the future. That's the sort of thing he cares about”. I would add keep repeating this “strong stark courageous” message eventually moves the message from suggestion to fact. It is assumed, hidden and thereby pernicious. The evil one is devious, cunning and most often in disguise. By this psychological process listeners give up their cognitive skills. This is exactly what the Demon of Secularism does not want us to do.
In the United States the basis of “Political Correctness” in the religious sphere is the Constitution of the United States itself. The weight of the First Amendment is the authority to exterminate God from our society. Like the arrested cognitive development of the adolescent, ‘foreclosure’ takes on the character of the “strong, stark, courageous” weighty interpretation of the First Amendment. The First Amendment reads in part: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” The lawmakers, judges, educational leaders, media types and even business executives emphasize the first part of this amendment in so many areas of daily social life. Am “free” to say the ‘Pledge of Allegiance’: ..”one nation, under God”? I am I free to say “Have a holy and blessed Christmas” or even “Merry Christmas?” This is offensive, ‘politically incorrect’ and as some would have it illegal. I had better say “Happy Holidays”. This applies to greeting friends and acquaintances of other religious teachings as well. Am I free to say “Happy Hanukah”, or have a “Holy and Blessed Ramadan” or “Have a festive Kwanza?’ On the ‘books’ such greetings are still ‘legal’, but highly socially disfavored. In the workplace this can lead to subtle discrimination and an egregious violation of worker rights. Further examples abound. The removal of the Decalogue from courtrooms, has been well documented in the press. In the United States there has been a dissociation from the definition of traditional institutions and values to a redefinition based on this “strong stark courageous mantra of so called ‘correctness.’ Marriage, such a good example because it is such a basic institution of society that not only Christians but even anthropologists who study culture would recognize has bee totally redefined to include a “joining in one flesh” of male to male and female to female. The secularist “correct” agenda is: Christmas, Hanukah, Ramadan, and Kwanza, etc. absolutely have to be eradicated. This is the “strong stark and courageous” interpretation of the first amendment. The secularists do not want Americans to know about or consider the plea of the Rhode Island delegation to the “Framers of the Constitution”: “That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, and not by force or violence, and therefore all men have an equal, natural, and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience, and that no particular religious sect or society ought to be favoured, or established by law in preference to others.”This “religiously incorrect secularism” is not limited to the United States. All references to the Christian past that makes up Europe have been dropped from the documents establishing the recent European Union. In France it has been proposed to ban any outward display of religious commitment, such as a neck cross, in certain areas. Screwtape and the other ‘Demons of Correctness’ are dancing in glee.
Code: Select all
Persons who want to advance their cognitive function to more advanced levels as discussed by Erikson and Marcia would want to consider “all the facts” and not be forclosed into accepting on “authority” the ‘strong, stark courageous’ politically correct mantra. In doing this would be considered what historians have taught us was the original intent of the first part of the first amendment for the fledging United States of America not to have a “state” religion. This would allow all citizens who are religiously committed to be free to exercise the tenets of their commitment. (Froom, 1946). The “Declaration of Independence” which predates the Constitution by nearly 12 years surly reflects the ‘minds of the Founding Fathers of the United States. It starts out: “When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them … “; and continues “…that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” The “religiously incorrect secularist” does not want anyone to see or think about the word “Creator” or “Nature’s God” used by the founding Fathers of the country, in the Declaration. So too the “Motto of the United States enacted in 1956 by an act of Congress: “In God We Trust” is to be ignored (and eventually replaced). The “cognitively advanced” and spiritually directed Christian would come to just the opposite conclusion: our Creator, God and the words of Our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ, His saints and His Church are exactly what is to be considered, thought about and acted on.
“Religiously correct secularism” (the only type of secularism minimally acceptable to committed follower of Christ) would start with the second phrase of the first amendment. It would emphasize “…no law …prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. This would be presenting all the facts, thereby facilitating individuals to attain a higher level of cognitive processing and thereby confounding the “Evil One” who wants people to use “strong, stark and courageous” mindless jargon. On a human level “thinking” replaces jargon (the language of the Evil One) and provides ground fertile for implanting the God given values the founding fathers wanted to establish. On a spiritual level a barrier to the spread of God’s word is removed without ever violating His gift to us of “Free Will”.
Religion and it’s values would be respected and celebrated. Instead of removing “freedom of religion” as has been done up to now, God’s word would be free to take hold. Religious symbols could be freely viewed. No religion would be established, but religion would simply be free to be exercised and displayed without legal, judicial or social hostility. In fact how about making such hostility “religiously incorrect.” Blessed be God in His angels and in His saints. Glory to God in all things.REFERENCES
Erikson, E.H. (1963) Childhood and society. NY: Norton.
Froom, L. (1946) The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, Review and Herald, Washington, DC: 3, 46-55.
Lewis, C.S> (1951) The screwtape letters. NY: Macmillan
Marcia, J.E. (1966) Development and validation of ego identity status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 3, 550-558.