Searching for God # 140

 Having attempted to paint a picture of some basic level of collaboration between and among the major world religions, especially around the issue of migrants, homeless, refugees and displaced millions whose numbers continue to rise amid rising temperatures, droughts, floods, disease, wars, famine, gang and terror violence and a growing imbalance between the have’s and the have-not's, I now find myself hoisted on the horns of my own petard. 

Some basic observations, first both Jewish and Muslim faiths place an extremely high value on laws, regulations, ritual observances, expectations and disciplined relationships among their own and even more disciplined expectations with the ‘others’ among whom they circulate daily. The concept of benchmarks, rules, laws, formal expectations, while noble, honourable and open to clean and unequivocal evaluation, as ‘derivatives’ or ‘legacies’ or ‘inheritances’ from God, seems more likely based on a human conception of any God’s relationship with the people who worship that deity. Those benchmarks, by definition, as minimum expectations, express a manner by which one shows reverence and respect to God, on terms that also establish a quasi-behavior-modification extrinsic classical conditioning model for their faith. Meet these minimum expectations and God will reward you...is a reductionistic equation. Also, as each is deeply immersed in their ‘tradition’ of these laws and expectations, even with a variance over rigorous efforts at interpretation, offer little room for speculation that collegial, collaborative and even respectful relations between those two faiths might emerge any time in the near-or-medium -erm future.  

Christians, as inheritors of both Jewish and New Testament theological perspectives, seem to fall somewhere between the legalistic and the more eastern ‘unity’ with the universe perception and spirituality. Some might argue that this hybrid offers nothing of substance, clear expectation and ‘confidence’ (or trust) in whatever is considered the right way to perceive and to worship God. Currently, the Roman Catholic church is witnessing a surge in people seeking admission, given that it is perceived to have a highly visible, credible, authority figure in the pope, as well as a minimum agenda of expectations (and exclusions) for whom and what it considers ‘within’ the boundaries of its tolerances. At the centre of that catalogue of ‘exclusions’ are, to varying degrees, members of the LGBTQ+ communities. And the tolerance or exclusion of that minority continues to generate waves of division around the globe in both religious and political circles. 

The Anglican church, too, seems divided perhaps noted by geography as well as by theology, over the question of the acceptance, tolerance, welcome or rejection of the whole issue of homosexuality. This ‘divide’ will continue to demonstrate that people whose orientation   religion is more conservative are separated from those whose orientation is considered more liberal. In North America, there is a considerable demographic that considers itself liberal on these issues, with a sizeable and vociferous minority favouring the conservative position, to the point where they have formed a separate ‘Anglican’ communion. (This development has been documented earlier in this space.) 

Social issues, originally considered in and through both public and private ‘programs’ and initiatives to lend a helping hand to those in need, has been morphing into environmental, economic and political issues, given the dramatic rise in emergent climate disasters, economic disparities, and political divides between the radical right and what was once termed liberalism. At the centre of all of these issues boils the matter of ‘different’ individuals attempting to enter, merge, integrate, graft onto the majority demographic of various developed nations. The rights, expectations, rejections, tolerances, and outright hostilities of established communities are in full convergence with those same rights, expectation, rejections, tolerances and outright hostilities of the millions of interlopers, invaders, immigrants, refugees, homeless and stateless people. 

Whether from a religious, or a political or an economic, or ethical/moral perspective, the convergence of such sizeable waves of ‘newcomers’ (with their respective trauma, linguistic, ethnic, religious and traditional values and rituals) into previously ‘quiet’ and ‘peaceful’ communities is and will continue to cause varying degrees of intensity, fear, apprehension and outright hate among those whose lives are being invaded. In Piddington, in Oxfordshire UK, for example, a community of some 350 people, the British government is intending to ‘deposit’ some 1,200 men into a vacant military barracks. There are no stores, no doctors, hospitals, schools or work opportunities in that community and, for starters, the women are terrified and have taken to engage in personal security and self-protective courses as their first attempt to protect themselves. And that is only a single example of the kind of human, people-to-people conflict that is showing in many places. 

The governments have no experience in how to address the problems both of the integration of migrants and the fears and apprehensions of the locals. There has been no community-wide education among a wide base of the ‘established’ population to prepare for this influx, or the next one which will surely come. The churches have taken a piece-meal approach as one of several potential ‘ministry’ initiatives and yet a single parish can do only very little given the size and availability of its fiscal and human resources. In Canada, for example, the federal government dramatically reduced the number of migrants accepted annually, given the serious squeeze their number was placing on an already-crowded housing market in spite of the cash-cow that was the registration and tuition fees of foreign students for Canadian colleges and universities. 

And let’s not accept any attempt to reduce this problem to a political, economic, religious or even environmental issue, although it crosse all of those boundaries and academic disciplines and practices. A recent report from the USA indicates that at least one billionaire has fallen prey to a book whose influence seems to have infected other of his billionaire class: The Sovereign Individual, by James Dale Davisdon and William Rees-Mogg, published in 1997. 

From a piece written by Dawn Dussault, May 1, 2025, on ChatGPT Summary of The Sovereign Individual, we read: 

(The book)....foresaw the profound impacts that digital technology, globalization and the decline of the nation-state would have on society. The book predicted that individuals, particularly a small group, would rise to greater autonomy and power due to technological advances leading to a decentralized world. However, the authors also highlighted numerous warnings about the consequences of this shift, many of which resonate with global developments today. These warnings and insights are particularly relevant in the context of the rise of digital currencies, cryptography, global governance and growing economic disparity.  

1. Decline of the nation state: Prediction: the authors foresaw the nation-state's decline, as individuals would be able to live and work beyond national borders, using technology and digital finance to avoid government control. 

2. Emergence of the Sovereign Individual: Prediction: The sovereign individual  is someone who thrives in post-nation-state world. This individual is empowered by technology, global financial markets, and private security. They can choose their own jurisdiction, avoid taxes, and protect their wealth. 

3. Risk of global elites consolidating power: Prediction: The book suggested that global elites would dominate in the future, using global networks and digital tools to govern and control much of the world’s resources. These elites would be immune to national law, operating through private corporations and private security forces. 

4. Growing inequity and fragmentation: Prediction: As the world becomes more decentralized, the wealthy elites (sovereign individuals) will flourish, but the majority of people will be left behind, leading to widening inequality and social fragmentation. 

5. Cybersecurity and Personal Property: Prediction: The authors foresaw a world of surveillance where individuals’ data would be easily accessible, and they would need to rely on secure communications and private data protection. 

6. Collapse of social welfare and security: Prediction: With the decline of the nation-state, traditional welfare systems and social security structures will collapse. People will be forced to take care of themselves, relying on private security, private healthcare, and private education. 

Does this diatribe not read as if it were an integral and nefarious component of Project 2025, the template which directs the current United States administration? Is this not precisely what concepts, attitudes, rhetoric and actions we are witnessing every day from Washington....and other places. The idea that Viktor Orban is (was?) the shining star of the radical right movement around the world, excluding immigrants, refugees, indigents appears as merely a small pill compared to the much wider, deeper prescription/prediction that The Sovereign Individual posits. This tidal wave of observations, predictions, warnings and global ‘red flags’ comes as a complete and utter decimation of everything the concept of the ‘public good’ every was intended to represent and to hold high as a social ideal. 

What would our friend, Leo Tolstoy have to say about the implications of such a book and the growing evidence that already a group of self-declared elites, mostly of them already billionaires, has moved a considerable way along the path to ‘sovereignty.’ Today, in Canada, many are debating the risks to the sovereignty of Canada, given the threat to that sovereignty from the current occupant of the Oval Office. Some also are questioning the potential loss of Canadian sovereignty as it receives (and accepts?) a formal invitation to become an associate member of the European Union. Even Great Britain approved Brexit, in order to ‘preserve’ and ‘protect’ its national sovereignty from what might have happened if it has remained within the EU. 

And now, individual sovereignty is being discussed as the ultimate and potentially inevitable golden rainbow at the end of the horizon of digital, technological, crypto and privatization convergence. 

Where might we even begin to look for God in the middle of this discussion? If God is predictably (dangerous word in this context) on the side of the billions who will be left behind, will the shared vision, legitimate needs and ordinary human aspirations of those billions of ‘nothings’ (in the eyes, exclusions, and dismissals of the elites) be able to be even voiced, never mind actually heard and listened to? Do not be surprised if those elites declare that “God is on our side!” as they historic and repeated method of all elites to wrap their exclusive picture of the ideal world in a deity they believe completely and unequivocally supports their power and status? 

Or.....is it just possible that the elites are already over-playing their cash-vault-overflowing hand? Is it just possible that millions, if not billions will become words to describe the most authentic, meaningful, potentially life-giving aspirations of humanity, and not reserved for the exclusive use of depictions of personal greed and personal acquisition of wealth for its own sake? 

Some of us continue to believe, and to continue to need to believe that humans, together, irrespective of our many deep differences and divides can see and will come to a united, shared and effectually expressed push-back to this Hades-inspired race to the bottom.