These conflicting ideas fueled the fire of an enduring argument among early Christians on whether Jesus' mission was for the entire world or only Jewish people. After a few years of debates, the faction emphasizing the global scope of Jesus' message came out on top and forever marked the nature of Christianity from then on.
This choice proved to be the key to the popularity of Christianity. As relatively ethnically homogenous tribal societies gave way to multiethnic nation states, the idea of a chosen people based on membership in a specific ethnic group turned out to be less and less useful. By moving away from it, Christianity took the first step toward becoming the official religion of the Roman Empire.
In the early 300s, Emperor Constantine found time in his busy schedule (murdering scores of political opponents and having his wife boiled alive and his own son executed is hard work . . .) to transform Christianity from a persecuted sect into the main religion of the Empire. It's not that Constantine had suddenly turned soft and fuzzy. His motives had preciously little to do with spirituality, and everything to do with his desire to find a religion that would create greater unity across the Empire. What he was ultimately after was greater control over its people. Ethnically, culturally, politically, and religiously, the Roman Empire was very much divided. Throughout it, plenty of languages were spoken, and plenty of gods worshipped. These divisions created problems for any ruler since the population didn't see many reasons to be attached to a central government. The only thing that connected these people together was the power of Rome's armies.
Being the smart politician that he was, Constantine decided something had to be done in order to create more unity among the citizens by the illusion—if not the reality—of shared values. Religion could provide this badly needed bond. Being a citizen would be more than an accident of fate; it would also indicate membership in a common religion. To serve Constantine's goal of mixing state and religion, monotheism seemed much more attractive than
polytheism because it demanded strict obedience to a single source of authority—a prospect that had Constantine salivating.
When it came to picking which form of monotheism to sponsor, the choice was obvious. Whereas Judaism had too many ties to one specific ethnic group to work well among an ethnically mixed entity like the Roman Empire, the more inclusive Christianity could serve as the perfect candidate. Making it painfully clear that religious piety was not his primary concern, Constantine promptly moved to squash any alternate interpretations of Christianity other than the one he endorsed. The rubber-stamped version of Christianity was to be used as a tool to tighten his grip on the reins of power.
240
The sense of common identity created by the “chosen people” idea had worked great for a large tribal society. A Christian identity tied to Roman citizenship could serve a similar function on the much larger scale—the Roman Empire. Rather than one religion for a single ethnic group, there would be a single religion for all people under the same state.
Even though ethnic pride is, by definition, tied to a specific ethnicity, whereas nationalism and patriotism are not, they all build a group identity that goes beyond the individual or the family level, but yet is not inclusive of all humanity. This pride in an identity built along ethnic or national boundaries is why I address here ethnic pride, patriotism, and nationalism together as different heads of the same monster.
Borrowing a page from Constantine's playbook, in collusion with church authorities, most rulers throughout much of Western history
promoted the idea that political power derives its legitimacy from God. The writings of Saint Paul provided the necessary ammunition for this totalitarian nightmare since, as Paul wrote,
Every person must submit to the authorities in power, for all authority comes from God, and the existing authorities are instituted by him. It follows that anyone who rebels against authority is resisting a divine institution, and those who resist have themselves to thank for the punishment they will receive . . . You wish to have no fear of the authorities? Then continue to do right and you will have their approval, for they are God's agents working for your good. But if you are doing wrong, then you will have cause to fear them; it is not for nothing that they hold the power of the sword, for they are God's agents of punishment bringing retribution on the offender.
241
This perfect declaration of religious fascism is what allowed Constantine to consider himself “the vice-regent of God.”
242
It also laid the groundwork for the long-lived symbiotic relationship between government and church.
History records several cases of extremely religious people who considered patriotism a form of idolatry since, in their minds, the ultimate loyalty should be reserved only for God. But this is far from typical. Within Christian countries, religion and patriotism have mostly gone hand in hand, resulting in plenty of “God Bless America”–type statements. The declaration by French patriot Joan of Arc, “He who makes war on the holy kingdom of France makes war on King Jesus,”
243
stands as the kind of sentiment fostered by the marriage of ultra-nationalism and religion throughout the history of Christianity. Similarly, Muhammad served as a prophet
and
ruler of the early Muslim community, setting the blueprint for the union of religion and politics within the history of Islam.
Eventually, in one of the great moments of human history, the Enlightenment finalized the divorce of church and state throughout Europe. This hasn't happened quite as decisively in the Muslim world. While in many countries this split is radical and real, in others separation of church and state doesn't run too deep, and religious nationalism still runs strong.
Whether the union of politics and religion is a cynical, Machiavellian strategy to gain more control over credulous peoples, or whether political figures really saw (and continue to see) themselves as God's agents is immaterial. The end result is the same. Once church and state are united, disobeying the government equals disobeying God. And when it's God Himself who is waving your national flag, it becomes much harder not to march along. Fascist movements are regularly born on the pillars of church and patriotism.
Creating a collective mythology with shared rituals and values is a great shortcut to totalitarianism. Hitler understood it well, and that's why he reworked the “chosen people” concept into his ideology on the superiority of the “Aryan race”—a bitter irony considering his venomous hatred for Jews. The Japanese government did a similar thing by temporarily twisting Shintoism into a nationalistic religion promoting the divine origin of the Japanese people and their equally “divine” destiny to rule over Asia. Both Communism and Nazism attacked traditional forms of religion because they sought to replace them as “secular religions.” The Nazi slogan “One people, one nation, one leader” is a direct echo of Louis XIV's Christian motto “One king, one law, one faith.”
244
If you are wondering what horrendous sin you committed to deserve having landed back in history class, I apologize for the previous several pages and will have pity on you. I was not trying to torture you with history just for the fun of it—I swear. This long-winded historical background was important to explain how even religions that are not tied to a specific ethnic identity often end up supporting scary forms of nationalism. If I haven't put you to sleep by now, hopefully you are beginning to see why patriotism and/or nationalism and/or ethnic pride make me cringe.
Anytime I run into masses of people gathered around a flag—any flag—invoking divine blessings for their country, I feel like I have been transported into one of those body-snatchers sci-fi movies where the aliens start screeching, hissing, and pointing fingers as soon as they discover that a non-alien is among them. Patriotism and religious fervor can be scary on their own, but when united together they kick wide open the door to self-righteous fanaticism. This combination is like steroids for mob mentality, since it's easy to find a justification for any action as long as it's done in the name of serving God and country. From the Rape of Nanking to the Thirty Years' War, from the conquest of the Americas to the Holocaust, much horrendous violence against civilians has been committed by a bad mix of nationalism and religion.
We don't need any strange conspiracy theory to explain why masses of people regularly jump on the bandwagon of religious patriotism. People are not brainwashed into giving their power away to political and religious authorities. They are happy to do it. At the root of it all is the very human desire to belong. Who doesn't want to be part of something greater than themselves? Most human beings
crave the safety and sense of security that come from being part of a powerful group. Rather than having to solve life's problems on their own, people in need of guidance can find readymade beliefs, codes of behaviors, symbols, and creeds provided by the group. The price to pay is your individuality with its quirks and idiosyncrasies. A group, in fact, usually has limited tolerance for anyone departing from its core beliefs. Too much questioning is considered an act of betrayal.
As the fashion industry knows well, there is power in labels. Put a designer label on some clothes, and millions of people will pay insane prices for them. It's all in the name. Group identities are no different. Embracing them makes you feel special—something that people who are not special badly want. And out of all the possible forms of group identity, none are as strong as religion and nationalism. This is why they have attracted scores of human beings throughout history. They give you a sense of identity simply for being born in a certain country or into a certain culture and claiming to adhere to certain beliefs. But no matter how different they claim to be from each other, all these identities are nothing but masks we can wear to avoid having to find out who
we
are. Nations at war despise each other's flags but all agree on the importance of patriotism. They differ on which side they label good or bad, but they play the same exact game. For my part, I find them all equally pathetic.
Clearly not all forms of ethnic pride or nationalism or patriotism lead to violent fanaticism. I find nothing wrong with having a soft spot for the land where you grew up, and the places of your childhood.
There's something natural and legitimate about feeling this type of emotional attachment. But as Lewis Mumford notes,
The simple love of country and home and soil, a love that needs neither reasons nor justifications, is turned by the official apologists of the state into the demented cult of “patriotism”: coercive group unanimity: blind support of the rulers of the state: maudlin national egoism: an imbecile willingness to commit collective atrocities for the sake of “national glory.”
245
Even if we dismiss the most dramatic excesses as aberrations, ethnic pride, nationalism, and patriotism still bug me to the core. Plenty of people are so pathologically attached to them that I'm sure my words will strike them as threatening and offensive. This is not my intention, but the topic is too important not to address it just for fear of hurting somebody's feelings. Every time I walk into the campus cafeteria at one of the colleges where I teach, and I see people of the same color self-segregating to different tables, I'm reminded that, far from being some abstract, academic debate, this issue very much affects us in our day-to-day lives. After all, these categories often determine whom we are willing to date, be friends with, and go to war against. Since so much is at stake, let's dig deeper to see what all the fuss is about.
After enjoying many centuries of popularity, today, in many places around the world, public displays of racism are no longer looked upon kindly. Why is racism bad? Because it assumes that all members of a certain ethnic group or nation share certain cultural characteristics, and these characteristics are bad or inferior, and for this reason we should hate these people. This is clearly a mean-spirited indulgence in the worst kind of stereotype.
Ethnic pride and patriotism, on the other hand, are usually touted as noble values. Religions gladly give their blessings to these forces with various “God Bless . . . [fill in the blank with whichever nation you want]” or “one Nation under God”–type statements. And how do ethnic pride and patriotism work? They assume that all members of a certain ethnic group or nation share certain cultural characteristics, that these characteristics are good or superior, and for this reason we should be proud to belong to this group.
Is it just me, or does this sound a lot like the flip side of racism? Both racism and patriotism share the idea that people belonging to the same nation, or having the same skin color, share a common culture. The only difference is that racists look out at another group and view their values negatively, whereas patriots look at their own group and are proud. The assumption of shared values remains the same in both cases. The reason why one is frowned upon while the other is exalted escapes me.
Are racists and patriots right? Are values really shared by the majority of people within any one group? In the United States, we are told that freedom is the essential American value. That's what this country is supposed to be all about. But the notion of tying to a single flag a value that is highly desirable to most human beings strikes me as weird. If freedom is the monopoly of the United States, does that mean Canadians cherish tyranny and oppression? Last time I checked, many democratic governments throughout the world supported the ideal of freedom. Many people under repressive governments love freedom as well. Freedom is one of those worldwide human values that is beneficial to life across the globe. A single
nation, like a single ethnic group, is too small to appropriate something so universal.