Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Tower of Babel, Jews, Progressives, and Conservatives
One could certainly imagine a post on the Tower of Babel and Jews, but where do Progressives and Conservatives fit in? Recently I ran across two pieces, one an essay and the other a book, that demonstrated to me in a thoughtful manner that a second Tower of Babel is being built and we are seeing more evidence that not only this country, but the world, is in trouble.
If you are unfamiliar with the story of the Tower of Babel, it is quite short, only 11 verses in Genesis, Chapter 11. G-d determines that the building of the Tower must be stopped, since it bodes a catastrophic future for the people. Those building the Tower intended to reach heaven, and in one sense, bring heaven down to earth. These efforts suggested not only a challenge to G-d’s power, but an arrogance of the builders: they believed with their creativity and prowess they were capable of living a secular existence without G-d’s guidance. Rather than obey G-d, they only needed to pursue their own desires for progress and they would be successful in their efforts. Leon Kass, in his book, The Beginning of Wisdom, explains the emptiness of their goals:
Power and technique are ethically neutral; they can be used both justly and unjustly. Worse, technical prowess, precisely because of its transformative power, creates the illusion that one can do without justice and morality. The omnicompetent city lacking in justice is a menace, both to itself and to the world. Even assuming that the inhabitants wish to be just, where will be builders of Babel find any knowledge of justice, or indeed, any moral or political principle or standard?
G-d recognized the dangers and said:
If , as one people with one language for all, this is how they have begun to act, then nothing that they propose to do will be out of their reach. Let us then, go down and confound their speech there, so that they will not understand one another’s speech!
The source of their problems would have been not only their arrogance, but also in their shared language, which allowed them to unite in their efforts to build; ironically, the closer they came to heaven, the more distant they were from G-d. In the meantime, the people also ignored G-d’s direction to populate the world, and chose instead to stay where they were, to seek comfort and to pursue their own self-serving aspirations.
So how does this story speak to today’s Progressivism? Progressivism claims many goals, but for the purpose of this post I am focusing on its insistence on an uncontested universal state. From the time Progressivism began, a major goal has been to eliminate nation states and unite in a world government. The European Union is a prime example of these efforts. In today’s world, I would suggest that a “shared language” refers to the common ideology that Progressives share.
In a First Things article, the author, Shalom Carmy, gives a few examples of the dangers of a universal vision for the Jews in particular, and the advantages of a disunited world. He describes the reasoning of 14th Century scholar, Rabbi Nissim of Gerona who explained how a national lack of unity saved the Jews:
…the lack of unity among the nations of the world has allowed Jews to escape persecution, going sometimes from Muslim countries to Christian ones, and vice versa. The desire for political unity is not inherently sinful, but its consequences in a corrupt world are deplorable. God was acting benevolently when he fragmented the human race into many languages and peoples.
He also shared how a universal government would harm the Jewish community, explaining the ideas of Rabbi Naftali Zyi Berlin, head of a Yeshiva in 19th-century Lithuania:
For R. Berlin, the desire for unity is itself the cause of persecution. Universal government can’t permit individuals and groups to remove themselves from the collective. There can be no tolerance of loyalty to ideas at variance from those propagated by the central government. Thus the drive toward unity necessitates persecution and ultimately justifies murder.
In recent years we have seen attacks on Jewish requirements for slaughtering animals to observe kosher laws, as well as protests for the ritual slaughter of a chicken at Yom Kippur. Regulations have also been proposed for outlawing infant circumcision, which would essentially render Jewish practice illegal.
Finally, Mr. Carmy adds another concern:
Then there is a broader worry. Progressivism has a strong universalistic trajectory. It also tends to be hostile to traditional religion. Here, R. Berlin’s worries come to the fore. It’s not hard to imagine a tightly knit European polity undertaking aggressive means to secure the universal triumph of progressive ideals. Jews and others whose religious practices are deemed “unprogressive” are likely to feel the pressure.
Judaism is not the only group at risk. We have seen Christians being attacked on many levels as well. And since the most Conservative communities within these religions are the people who are most sharply focused in the sights of Progressives, Conservatives (religious or not) are high on their list for condemnation. Anyone who doesn’t conform to Progressive practices and ideals are at risk.
So Progressivism continues to strengthen as it builds on its arrogance, exclusivity, intolerance and hatred in a modern ethic of the Tower of Babel. Who or what will stop them? As more freedoms are condemned and more restrictions are enacted, will their Tower continue to grow? Are these continued efforts signaling a slow, laborious but continual construction of a modern Tower of Babel?
Is there no one who can bring them down?
Published in Religion & Philosophy
I believe the Q & A was from @Hypatia originally. I tried to edit the chain of quotes and did not seem to get that quite right.
My reading of the Book of Acts is that it was God who struck Ananias and Sapphira dead, not Peter. I believe that Peter, in a prophetic sense, only announced what God was going to do. The sin of the two was not withholding their funds, as the passage makes quite clear, but lying. (Acts 5:3-4 King James Version quoted)
The communal life apparently lasted only for a short time in Jerusalem and is neither commanded nor condemned as a Christian practice as far as I can tell.
I do not see how we get past this split without a disaster. I believe the left will work to push us all out of work, our of the public square, our of our homes. Every time the left gets enough power, it commits as many murders as it can. Every. Time.
Okay wait, what? God puts both the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge in Eden. He didn’t forbid the fruit of the Tree of Life. They coulda eaten that any time. They coulda eaten that first, then later gotten bored and eaten the forbidden fruit. And in Eden, they were already “inGod’s presence”. He used to come down for a chat every evening, right?
However, this take on the story oes confirm more to the folkloric trope. We think of this as an explanation of how sin came into the world, but it’s really of the type explaining how death came into the world. You’re saying, once they had “fallen” they had to die. (Or, I guess, theyda been evil demigods? Problem with this is, they weren’t created immortal; otherwise why would God have been worried about them eating the Tree of Life?
I guess A& E were like the snake, (here doing a cameo of his traditional rôle as an animal that constantly renews its own life); they wouldn’t have died as a natural result of living, but they weren’t invulnerable to violent death.
And Job? I better not get started. Maybe that would make a good post…
St Paul was a bit more practical; he didn’t seem to be under the impression that The End was necessarily imminent. We don’t know, so,let’s make some policy here.
Still, it is reported of the early church:
…”and not one of them said that aught of the things he possessed were his own; but they had all things common…..For neither was there among them any that lacked, for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them at the apostles’ feet, and distribution was made unto each, according as any one had need.” Acts 4:32-35.
That is the context of the Ananias and Sapphira story, which comes immediately after the quoted passage.
I’m afraid that I might have been in danger of side-tracking the original thread with some of my earlier comments. More to Susan’s original post, Christian writings appear to make negative statements about one-world government as well. I think of Revelation, or the Apocalypse, which is a difficult and controversial book, but it seems to me that it is saying that the one-world government will come, at least for a limited time, and things will be very bad for anyone living at that time. The Christian answer, as I see it, is that only the Messiah can and will bring the Tower of Babel down. (I am speaking in very general terms.)
A thoughtful response, Joel. My only reluctance to accept it is that G-d expects us to take action when we see wrongdoing. I’m not prepared to wait for Moshiach when I should be acting! ;-)
@susanquinn
I could not agree more. I think that Christian theology supports this.
I see it this way. I am a citizen of two kingdoms. God’ and man’s.
If I am living well , Gods Kingdom is preeminent. However man’s kingdom needs tending.
Oh I agree with this! God needed enemy nations in the OT, repeatedly used them to chastise the Children of Israel The Israelites didn’t proselytize when they won, either: they killed each and every one of the enemies (or else!) You are right: it is the antiChrist who will bring all nations under his/ her yoke.
(At least, until Time is over; when the New Jerusalem–a city, that human agglomeration which God has until then pretty consistently reviled–is established upon the Earth. But that is out of history. )
Ive always been struck by the words “every eye shall see Him” , meaning when .Christ returns, “all flesh shall see it together”. Sounds like the Internet: Whatever is happening anywhere in the world now, people across the globe can view it pretty much simultaneously.
Everybody read Dave Eggers’ The Circle ( book is better than the movie).
Years and years ago I read that the UN is the Tower of Babel. End it!
@susanquinn, That’s what we can do.
The only argument against ending it is possible effect on NYC economy, but I think,the bldg could pretty quickly be turned into residential condos.
“the suggestion that one can do without justice and morality” line jumped out. It seems modern culture has fast-forwarded into social “justice” warriors everywhere, politically, religiously, socially – yet the morality part is left out or changed to fit the times.
This is such a timely post as we approach the holy days. It seems the tower is getting taller and taller – technology has become what people worship instead, as well as their own reflections (hello selfie). Technology has also become the antithesis to silence – the only place one can connect with and absorb God’s message. God has left us to our own devices (no pun intended). Excellent post – thank you Susan!
Often times I think “Let them build it” then I realize, their failure are never their failures. They had good intentions, it’s just those nasty Republicans didn’t allow them all the resources.
Thanks for making me smile, Jeff. Not only your points, but their failures become (or lead to) our failures. And as you and I know with the Progs, good intentions are almost never enough! Too often, we all have to live with the results.
Progressivism is not unitary; especially now. The dominant political story of our time is about the splintering of the post-war deep political and moral consensus under the stresses of modernity. The left whipsaw of the 60’s culminated in the rot and decay of the 70’s, and the Reaganite backlash in the 80’s ended in a popped capital bubble, shattered expectations, and the grinding extermination of unskilled labor at the hands of mechanization and global labor and capital markets. There is no one central “Progressive” response to this, aside from a basic assumption that “something new must be built.” An instructive (though fortunately much more extreme) historical case study is the Russian revolutionary period. Social Revolutionaries, Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, Anarchists, Orthodox zealots, nationalists…Even though it was clear to most that the Czarist status quo was rotting and unsustainable, the fights over what would replace it were even nastier than the struggle which overthrew it.
If your worry is that something new is slouching towards Bethlehem to be born…yeah. Social consensuses fall apart pretty regularly – opium, demographic transition, and mechanization are doing for ours pretty well – and nature abhors a vacuum. But the legacy of Babel is already on us. And thanks to that curse, building anything is a long, hard, and usually bloody slog.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Adam. Although the Progressives are in disarray with no one to take over leadership, their overall agenda has been consistent for a long time. The means to accomplish it may digress here and there, and they’ve run into some bumps, but I am concerned that with the Conservatives’ inability (or unwillingness) to slow them down, we may actually be clearing a pathway for them. So are you saying that the Progressives are going to have a long, hard, bloody slog in making progress, or that we will have a hard time, or both? And in what ways?
Yet God let us go to the Moon and send probes into space. Perhaps the story it isn’t about physically reaching heaven, but imitating God. Maybe Babel was a graven image. I can see how progressivism attempts utopia and am hoping that the saying God sets them up and knocks them down is true.
Sometimes just the omission of a word makes all the difference in the Bible. It isn’t money that is the root of all evil, but the LOVE of money. Huge difference in understanding.
Describing agendas are “consistent” is always tricky. I bet that we could get everyone to agree that puppies and kittens are cute. Or that being hungry is bad. Or that death sucks. It’s the details where everything breaks down. This is what’s called a “motte and bailey” problem. Everyone can agree on the broadest, most banal outlines of what they want. People should be happy. People should be productive. People should be prosperous. People should be good and kind and loving and virtuous. But when you expand out into the actual realm of government and law – actually taking and using power to encourage some behaviors, discourage others, punish some, reward yet more – consensus breaks down incredibly rapidly. That’s the hard part. That’s the Babel part. Even if we can communicate massive broad ideas, we don’t share the same language for more sophisticated or tetchy ones; to say nothing of policy priorities or modes of implementation or other cultural accoutrements. So yeah. Don’t make the mistake of looking at people and thinking that just because they all agree that you’re wrong means that they don’t have massive internal divisions. Just like Never Trumpers, SoCons, War Hawks, Kudlowians, and MAGAites don’t necessarily share much other than a dislike of the “left” in its broadest possible meaning.
What a fascinating thought by Mr. Carmy. I had not ever seen that idea before. I think he’s right.
Very well said, Adam. You should write a post on it!
It is fascinating. In an earlier comment, @iWe said there are many commentaries on this very issue, but I’m not well read enough to have encountered them. I’m glad I did!
Maybe so. And maybe, as was suggested to me by the title, it is the progressives that are doing the Babel-izing — perversion of the language having rendered reasonable discussion of their aims impossible. Black is white. Murder is choice. War is peace. And we play into it.
You are so right, YCMT! They may have sabotaged their efforts by corrupting the language, demanding PC speech, and created havoc. I guess in that case, maybe they are destroying their own Babel. We can hope.
This is a great comment. I’m not real adept at getting deep into scriptural interpretation, I do work at trying to understand what I am observing. It is very true that there is much agreement regarding desirable resulting states on both the Left and the Right. Then comes questions of priorities, means versus ends. America was founded, in my view, based on a compromise of these competing approaches such that it is possible to have agreement on desired outcomes but in getting there the fundamental constitutional protection of individual freedom (choice) must be maintained. This process I see as consistent with Christian doctrine. I also see the Left as willing to dispense with this process and undoing Christian influence helps bring this about.
A Christian Socialist then,( question I posed earlier), can only occur when, and if, there is universal acceptance by all of the processes governing people. Since we have no prospect of getting to this state, there is no such thing in this world as a Christian Socialist.
A lady who I spoke with today describes social media as being like the tower of Babel. No matter how ignorant, crazy or bigoted you are you can post anything and it can be seen by anyone. The most terrible forms of Islam can go viral for example. Since we can communicate accurately with each other in one big cyber city, we suffer the curse of Babel. The first time I read the story G-d kinda seemed like a jerk but maybe he was sparing us.
The story of the garden of Eden is about leaving childhood. Like young children to this day, they feel no shame at being naked. But once they eat of the tree of knowledge, they understand what being naked means. That’s why they immediately try to fashion clothing. Beyond the physicality, their relationship with G-d changes completely. A child is trained to follow orders but when you gain the ability to reason the relationship becomes much rockier because instead of just following orders you have to understand the meaning behind them.
I also find it instructive that Adam and Eve do the very normal child-like thing of eating something he’s not supposed to when the adult is away. Also, Eve goes through these changes before Adam much like puberty.
G-d’s chastisement is also all about adulthood.
16 To the woman he said,
“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
with painful labor you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you.”
17 To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’
“Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat food from it
all the days of your life.
18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.
19 By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return.”
In summary, G-d says, “Adam, go get a job. Eve, make me grandchildren.”
This story is pretty complex as it connects sexual maturity with knowledge. Furthermore, knowledge makes us more like G-d but it simultaneously makes the relationship much more conflicted.
Yes, Henry. You could say he was saving us from ourselves.
Indeed. It’s part of what it means to be human, I think. Thanks, Henry.
I don’t read that account the same way. They were not struck dead because they wanted to retain some money. They were struck dead because they thought they could lie to G-d.
I would say especially in the Church. Socialism requires taking.
Yes, you’re right. But, communal living like what was described in Acts faded away afterward. That was my (apparently unfunny) joke about socialism.