The Modern Pantheon

In an age where "atheism" for once actually means the denial of a theos, of a god, and where people proudly where the moniker, it seems self evident that either one worships a god or doesn't. Of course, the question becomes exacerbated when people ask "Which god? The Christian god? The Jewish god? Allah? One of the Muslim gods?" And while the discussion of monotheism, deism, pantheism, is an interesting subject, that is not the subject of this post.
I do, however, need to treat of pantheism, at least briefly. I was informed some weeks ago by a friend that her husband considers himself a pantheist--that is, seeing God in everything, and everything in God. This is not pantheism, in the traditional sense, but rather universalism. My fear is that people do use "pantheism" in this way, or to say "worshiping all gods," a sort of religious relativistic pluralism. By pantheism, I mean the term that is related to the word "pantheon." By pantheism, I wish to mean worshiping all the approved gods. The pantheon of Rome, for example, included Jupiter, Mars, Venus, and Mercury, but it also included the Emperor, and even, according to Acts 17:23, to a certain extent the god of monotheism. These were all culturally and religiously acceptable gods to worship. By religiously, I mean that the official religion of Rome allowed that one could pray to any and all of these gods (at certain times, it was necessary, as with the martyrs not praying to the emperor). The concept of worshiping approved gods will be central to this post.
In contemporary culture, one may rightly belong to a specific religion, say Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sheikism, Taoism, Shamanism or any other worshiping body one might know of, and we consider this all fine and well. In America, especially, we say that one has a right, and it is a Constitutionally given right. However, there are still a significant number of people who do not consider themselves "religious." This list includes the skeptics, the atheists, the agnostics, the non-active believers, the "spiritualists," the "mystics," the Nihilists, the scientistic, et cetera. While these people may state that they don't participate in worship of a deity, my argument is that they do, and in fact, they often one of the following gods of the modern, or perhaps Post Modern, pantheon.
The first god I wish to mention is the god of mysticism. This is the god of divination, psychics, omens, good luck charms, astrology, and other quasi-mystical things. This correlates to the god Hermes or Mercury in the Greco-Roman pantheons. Today, we don't consider this god to be an actual anthropomorphic deity, but rest assured, many of us do believe in it. For the sake of the post, we'll call her Lady Luck. This is the goddess whom we think magically makes things work. "I didn't wear my lucky socks, that's why the Irish lost!" The realistic correlation of a pair of smelly socks and an entire football team winning is absurd, but we often posit such bad fortunes to our lack of properly divining. "A stranger smiled at me, that must mean I'll do well on my test." Another example of non-correlative, though perhaps coincidental happenings. I shall not beleaguer the issue, but I hope the point is clear.
Similarly, we consort her twin sister, Lady Fate. This is how "true loves" find each other. It isn't a matter of compatibility or openness to another person, but "the forces of the universe" bring it together. Lady Fate is considered to be a stronger deity than her sister, and is attributed with "if it's meant to be, it will be." There is a sense, tied with her, that we are incapable of forging our own experiences or controlling them. She is associated with Stoic-like people, the unambitious, and those who want follow Lady Fate. One might think of the Muses or the Fates (or the Norns if you follow Norse mythology).
Next we have the god of Chaos. The position of Chaos is randomness, unintelligibility, meaninglessness, Nihilism, disruption, the void, confusion, depression et cetera. This god may have the most followers up till now (though one should not pretend he cannot worship more than one of these deities). The Post Modern age has given rise to paintings, literature, philosophy, cinema, television, sculptures, music and many other media that pay homage to Chaos. The Existentialists hinted at him, but many atheists and agnostics also follow him. The Nihilists especially follow him. The main thing that this god conveys is a sense of confusion at meaning and a loss of hope for reality. One might think of any number of gods of Chaos from ancient pantheons: Loki, Hades, Pluto, and others.
In opposition to this god, we have the god of scientific certitude. Scientism is the position that many skeptics take up, claiming that nothing but what can be positively proven is worth talking about. There is no value to anything that cannot be quantitatively measured. This god, additionally, often exhibits a very jealous quality, demanding absolute adherence. Note well, though, that scientists may be Christian or Jew or Muslim, but they will not grant Science their religious devotion. Their is an ironic quality of this god, however, in that often it demands adherence to principles that have not yet been proven. I don't mean the Big Bang or Evolution, but rather String Theory, Multiple Universe Theory, and, of course, time travel. The only equivalent I might think of is Athena, though this analogy is incomplete since Athenian wisdom is not the same as Post-Enlightenment science.
Additionally, we have the goddess of Materialism. This goddess is worshiped by capitalists, economists, aesthetes, the rich and famous, and business men and women. Her rewards are the most apparent. Devotion to her brings real material wealth. One may devote her life to learning to make money, with priestess-like devotion, and so long as she's a worthy priestess, she will be richly rewarded. Priest-like discipline, found in investment bankers and stock brokers, brings its rewards, and if the market goes badly, it's likely that the goddess needs to be appeased. This consumerist god has no parallel in the ancient world, as capitalism is a modern phenomenon.
Then comes the god of Excess. This is the Bacchic god of college students, the famous and scandalous, alcoholics, narcotics, gluttons, and any other hedonistic devotee. Parties are the common form of worship, and those (I consider myself one of them, to my detriment) who follow this cult find themselves looking for chances to worship as often as possible. Often, devotion to this god causes disruption of family, legal consequences and humiliation. This god is the obvious parallel of Bacchus and Dionysus.
Finally comes the god of Patriotism. This god has more voice than any other god does. This is the god that tells us that the interest of the United States comes before our ability to help any other country. This is the god that tells us that if we do not support the war, we hate our troops. This is the god who tells us that if we don't vote, we have no voice to protest. His adherents are legion. And the worst part is that this god claims more adherents to other faiths, such as Christianity, Judaism and Islam, encouraging them to confuse their country obligations with their religious duties. The phrase "In God we trust" on our currency, for example, is an example of how Patriotism has overcome our Christian, Jewish, or Muslim sensibilities to tell us that being a Christian and a Patriot are synonymous. This god says civil disobedience, pacifism, and protest are all despicable, and that no good Christian should ever do so. This is the god of propaganda. This is the god of politics. This is the god of "American tradition." This is the most noxious worship, as it defines all our other practices. Consider, for example, the Messianic way people thought of President Obama's election, though as a president he has really done about average. This is not an attack on him, but rather a question of the idolization of political figures and national pride.
This concludes the pantheon. While we might not actually profess faith in any of these "gods," nor pray to them, we do pay homage to them (in the form of wearing symbols, devoting our careers to them, and other practices of religious devotion). There are undoubtedly more gods the average American, or simply Westerner pays devotion to, without thinking about. This is simply a brief summary. And while for an atheist or agnostic, devotion to these gods might be fine, if we consider ourselves monotheists, we need to seriously re-evaluate the religious devotion we pay to various things. As a Catholic, for example, if the United States declared war on the Vatican, what would my reaction be? Rather than trying to discern God's will, am I trying to divine, to find omens or just trust that the stars will align just right for me? Do I spend time trying to earn money at the cost of anything I hold sacred?
Perhaps the problem with the new pantheism arises from the rise of Christendom. After all, early Christians had to consider their faith in life and death terms, but what do we sacrifice for it today? Or do we rather offer up sacrifices to things other than what we profess to believe?

Idol worship

This coming Sunday is Flag Day. I will be in Montana rafting, so regrettably I won't be able to comment on it at the time.
One of the most peculiar things I can think of in my childhood when it comes to my parents trying to raise me to be a good Mormon was the high level of patriotism they instilled in me. The classic discussion in American culture and politics is always how much involvement religion should have in shaping who we are as the American people and the phrase "separation of Church and State" has always been the representation of this difference.
But over and above this my parents, and many of the parents in the communities I grew up in, instilled in their kids a kind of country worship. We were told to stand tall, not as believers, but as Americans. We were told to unite as patriots, not as Christians. We were told that the men who died for their country were heroes, and that those we fought were the enemy, but we were never told about those martyrs who died for Jesus.
I was raised to be much more of an American and a patriot that to be a Christian and a witness. But at some point, I realized that while Americanism is limited to those who live in a particular location at a specific time, I believed that true salvation and real truth was not limited in this fashion. if America is the greatest country on earth, what of those who lived before America was a nation, or those who unfortunately live in third world countries and are unable to improve their situations?
So I decided that my nationality was not as important to me as it is to other people. Furthermore, I decided that I wanted to stand by God much more than I wanted to stand by my country. In many instances throughout time, from the Romans to the NAZIs, true Christians have had to stand up against the state. Why should I pledge myself fully to a nation that is alterable according to the whims of the people who take power?
And then comes the idea of flag worship. In my house, the American flag as a holy artifact. It should never touch the ground, it should always be flown, it should never have rips or tears, and it should never be put in a situation that was disgraceful. When the flag goes by in a parade, we salute in reverence, as if it was Jesus himself. We all stand for the national anthem and face our banner. We all act as if that flag itself is the distributor of grace and the ultimate power that we have to answer to in this life.
This is what concerns me. It is isn't that our way of life is important to us. It isn't that we honor those who lead us and protect us. It is that we worship them. We adore our system so much we impose it on some and restrict it from others, all at our own whims. We worship the government and the military. We get tattoos of the flag and hang it from our houses. We love Amerigo Vespucci, the man from whom America gets its name, more than Jesus, for whom Christianity was named.

Martyrs

Lately I've been thinking about what martyrdom means. For many Christians, martyrdom is the ultimate way to show one's devotion to Christ. Kierkegaard says that unless we are willing to lay down our lives for Christ, we are not true Christians.
In the early parts of the Christian Church, there were many martyrs killed by the Roman Empire. These martyrs are widely looked up to for their courage and fidelity. Most became saints because of their martyrdom. The Emperors Domitian and Diocletian persecuted Christians openly and sent many to their deaths in grueling manners.
St Stephen is widely viewed as the first Christian martyr, and his death is recorded in the Book of Acts. Most of the Apostles were martyred. Peter was crucified upside-down. Paul was beheaded by Emperor Nero because he was a Roman Citizen.
With all the praise that goes to the Christian martyrs, it is also important to note that not every martyr's cause is a true cause.
Many unjust men and faulty causes have used martyrdom to prove correctness. Jim Jones thought that the fact that government was pursuing him proved that he was correct. Many suicide bombers and terrorists view their deaths as proving their point. The Heaven's Gate cult thought their suicides would bring them eternal joy on Hale's Comet. The arrest of Warren Jeffs only strengthened the FLDS Church's resolve.
In addition to this, what of the different martyrs from different faiths? There were the Christian martyrs, there were Jewish martyrs, Muslim martyrs, Buddhist martyrs, and Mormon martyrs. How do we reconcile so many martyrs with so many different faith traditions? Do we just look at the faith that has yielded the most martyrs?
I have heard that the Twentieth Century brought about the most Christian martyrs, especially with the wars that were fought and the genocides that occurred. How are the deaths of men like Dietrich Bonhoeffer to be compared with men like David Koresh?
We can look up to martyrs, but we cannot say that because somebody is a martyr, their faith is valid. Plenty of men have died for unworthy causes. Plenty have lived for worthy causes. Where we really need to look is not on the actual martyr, but on the cause that the martyr defended.