religion

The Madness Of Moral Monoprinciples

by

There’s a book I’ve mentioned a few times here, The Unaccountability Machine. It’s a book of why things in the 21st century suck, how we changed, and how we knew better. The very short form is that businesses (and thus governments and culture) became obsessively focused on stock price/monetary value and went bonkers. We’ve normalized it, we’ve built our culture around it, but it is in the end insane.

Directing your entire life by a single measure, building a world around it, diverting all your resources to it, is a short-term thing. It will break, as we in 2026 are realizing by basically reading the news.

This is business, but let me suggest that it can happen in culture and religion. A kind of Moral Madness where One Thing Matters which supposedly serves as a foundation, but eventually goes completely mad. Call it a Monoprinciple.

The anti-abortion movement in America was my first inkling of this. I’d see politicians, pundits, preachers, and followers utterly obsessed with banning abortion. Everything swirled around that motivation without any kind of moral consistency – no care for actual living children, living women, etc. There was an air of madness about it, a spinning inconsistency, wild-eyed and disturbing – leading to bombings, murder threats and further insanity.

Of course this played to the power of various politicians and preachers, but sometimes I wonder if they ended up riding the tiger they raised from a kitten.

Confucians and filial piety were another thing that got me thinking about Monoprinciples. It’s not hard to read any form of Chinese Philosophy and see something on filial piety and respect for family roles. Anyone who’s dealt with a dysfunctional family knows that such things aren’t what they’re cracked up to be. Though my readings were mostly Taoist, I did read Confucian books and other works of philosophy and history and you can feel those moments writers had to reconcile these issues – usually very poorly.

A hint of madness over the years, trying to reconcile to the reality of some parents just being pieces of shit. A hope for a foundation that wasn’t going to ever be found.

In Influencer-infused Christianity of 2026, as AI write this, there’s a peculiarly shallow madness. Talk of Jesus, of God, of some Christian Principles that are so important. Then people are trying to sell you Bible shoes or preachers are involved in a sex scandal or some Church-scamming politician spews absolute insanity in terms of policy. There’s so many people talking about how they’re so Christian, but it doesn’t seem to mean anything. It’s an empty madness, a hollow phrase, a Monoprinciple that can’t even be examined it’s so hollow.

Everyone wants the One Magic Thing that makes it all work. Or at least lets them convince others it’ll work so they can sell merch and pass the collection plate.

But it won’t work. You can’t invoke one magic principle or one magic name that supposedly Encompasses All Principles. Life’s weird and complex, definitions play into each other, moral actions require careful measurement. Just like the “Line Go Up” madness of the business world was invoked to pay a bill now coming due, it’s the same with moral principles, trying for a single measure will crash, even if you’re no longer around to flee.

It reminds me of the Taoist idea that “having the Tao” provides morals, duty, stability. Having that unity, that sense of connection is where principles come from. But to cling to one thing is to have it all fall apart.

–Xenofact

The Spiritual Dilution of Showing Off

by

There’s a religious cycle I see regularly. Someone who’s a Christian, almost inevitably of an Evangelical variety, does some extremely public preaching, often to the inconvenience of others (say, on an airplane). People discussing them inevitably invoke the Bible, Matthew 6:5-6 (give or take):

5. And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

(King James version, naturally)

I’ve seen this quote bought up many times over the decades and never thought about it too much. It’s advice against being a preening asshole and showoff, and hey, good enough for me. These people who supposedly know their Bible might want a refresher course and to also leave us alone.

However the latest round of this inevitable evangelism-leads-to-bible-quoting (a woman annoying people on an airplane) got me thinking. I’d gotten so used to this cycle, but in this case I got thinking about it more deeply. I suspect my own spiritual studies and contemplations of media had me in the right headspace to ask “why is this so important?”

Now I’m all for Jesus’ injunction against showing off spiritual practice. I mean I’m all for public rituals and shared spiritual spaces and the like, those have their place. But also that warning against being some big public religions showoff seemed so obvious I never analyzed it.

So I got to thinking about it. I also didn’t have to think much to realize that such a warning is actually pretty good for people of any religious persuasion. Yes, that includes atheists.

When you’re busy showing off your religious beliefs, really putting on the show for maximum exposure, it’s not about your religious beliefs. It’s about showing off, it’s about being noticed, it’s about whatever agenda you have. You’ve turned serious practice into marketing and influence-chasing.

When you’re in private in your spiritual practice, whatever it is, it’s focusing on the actual practice. The temptations to embellish, to show off, etc. are minimized. But when you’re alone, or maybe in a small group, you’re focused on what you’re supposedly actually trying to do.

When you’re running around in public engaging in aggressive religious behavior then it’s not focused on the supposed goals. It’s just showing off and has nothing to do with deeper beliefs. An emphasis on publicity inevitably leads to hypocrisy, and that’s not good for you or your (possibly unhappy) audience.

If you are actually sincere in your religious beliefs, you risk deadening them (and pissing people off). If you’re not sincere you’re just going to get worse and are probably avoiding the therapy you so desperately need.

I think this also extends, honestly, to public preaching in some cases. At my campus we used to have preachers show up in public space. But know what? They used public space, they kept to their own areas, I can respect that. They weren’t trapping someone on a plane or a bus.

Religious displays need to be approached with caution. You can end up turning your deep beliefs into a performance, and loose that spiritual connection to what you believe.

Also you’re probably being an asshole. But that goes without saying.

–Xenofact

Review: The Religion of the Future

by

A friend recommended I read philosopher Roberto Mangaberia Unger’s book “The Religion of the Future.” It’s an examination of religion, religions of the past, and how we might deliberately construct one for a better future. That summary barely does it justice, so a review is most certainly in order.

Early on, Unger clearly takes religion seriously as a social force – perhaps an inseparable part of human experience. His goal is to deconstruct religious trends to see what we can learn to deliberately create a helpful religion, The Religion of the Future. It’s obviously a heavy lift, but Unger is more than ready to do so.

In examining the human condition, he argues humans confront death, groundlessness, insatiability, and belittlement. We end, we are unsolid, we can be more than we are and do more than we ever do, and it’s very humiliating. Starting from this almost-Buddhist like realization, he analyzes what he sees as three major “advanced” religious trends.

Unger classifies religions into three categories for analysis. Overcoming the World (represented by Buddhism) seeks to transcend the world. Humanizing the World (represented by Confucianism) is about building society in an all-to complex world. Struggling With the World (represented by salvation religions like Christianity) is about people being a spirit who can grow and transcend. Unger believes the Struggling With the World holds the most promise, that promise of growth and being more than we are.

I found this section the weakest of the book, ironically, because even with my limited theological knowledge, his classification as related to existing religions is far too simple. There are salvation-driven forms of Buddhism, neo-Confucian schools that tended to mysticism, and Chrisianities that were basically pagan, and so on. His take on pagan religions ignores their complexities – and indeed how many survived in various forms, such as religious Taoism.

Unger also seems wary of some syncretic trends, whereas I’d argue most religions are inherently syncretic in practice. In fact Unger’s entire effort is essentially syncretic. This wariness is just odd, even when he actually has points about specific events.

This may seem that I’m down on this section of the book, whereas I’d argue it felt incomplete. Its’ salvation (ha) is the fact that despite what I’d argue is a deliberately narrow view of religions, Unger has spot on ideas of their benefits and flaws. Several times I found myself surprised by his conclusions only to agree with him – he at least “has enough” from his classification system to go places.

Unger also seems aware of his own bias. It’s clear he comes from a Christian background and that affects him – but he also comes to the conclusion that Christianity can’t evolve into The Religion of the Future. This book also has him wrestling with ideas, repeating things he’s clearly thought through.

The other benefit is that Unger, despite being an experienced writer and philosopher, hasn’t lost the enthusiasm of a second-year philosophy student stoned out of his mind. There’s a generosity to his work, he wants to share, he wants to wrestle with ideas (Struggling with the World indeed). Even though he has areas of deep opinion about certain philosophers, he’s not coming from a position of prissy judgement. Most importantly, it’s clear that he cares about people.

After analyzing religion, Unger then goes on to propose the framework, ethics, society, and challenges of an ideal Religion of the Future. I’d say this part of the book is superior to his initial analysis as he’s constructing an effective framework, though I’d have liked more historic examples. Critique aside, Unger opens up even more.

The funny thing is that ultimately Unger’s proposal reads as – dare I say it – a kind of syncretism. His confrontation with the instability of human existence more than echoes Buddhism. His emphasis on creating a functional society resonates with Confucianism and humanism. The ultimate goal is an evolution, a Salvation.

His Religion of the Future is a very pro-human religion, emphasizing what he calls Deep Freedom, the basis of a society that evolves and grows and encourages that in all people. To Unger – and more power to him I say – the goal of religion is a happier society and happier people who can reinvent themselves, and include as many people as possible. Each human is an embodied spirit, an infinite potential, to be given space to evolve and to connect to each other in love and cooperation.

However his proposals, though often abstract, are neither naive nor bereft of action. He has plenty of thoughts, from a general belief in limited market forces to the need for wide-scale education. He recognizes the flaws, often brutal, in society and religions – and he’s not here to make excuses.

He gives you an outline, albeit one that is hard to summarize unless you’re, well, him. Unger needs to release a condensed outline of his book, similar to Timothy Snyder’s On Freedom. This review indicates how hard it is to summarize easily as you’ll notice how general had to be.

It’s obvious that, flaws aside, I’d argue this book is well worth reading. Unger’s commitment to his cause, thoughtfulness, concern for humanity, all come together to create something special. I could argue with many things (yes, oft related to Taoism and syncretism), but I’d say he and I are about 80% on the same page. You might have a different 80% than me, but my guess is you’ll find yourself agreeing with him more often than not.

However, again fair warning, the book is deep and verbose. It is not written for everyone – it’s for people deep into philosophy and religion and applying it.. You might want to read a preview or borrow a copy to see if it’s for you.

As for me, it was well worth it. My copy is marked up with a bunch of those small page-stickers people use to mark passages without writing on the book. I’ll be reviewing it in time – and I rather imagine you’ll be reading some of what it inspires here.

May we, as Unger says, live so we die only once. As he closes out this book, he hopes we have a religion where how we live lets us “be deathless, temporarily.”

–Xenofact