However Unconscious

Throughout the book, Crowley qualifies her causality in terms of "if belief in apocalyptist narrative influences the minds of the politicians now in control of our destinies" or "however unconscious" this influence may be or, essentially, while most won't cop to the extremist p.o.v. of the apocalyptism I've defined, I think we all know the secret agenda. . .

This is necessary, of course, so that she doesn't overstate her case. On the other hand, I think it brings up what often happens in those "taboo" conversations in and out of the classroom: the reluctance to completely identify, and thus endorse, any one denomination's theoretical framework. In order to skirt the social taboo, or just to avoid feeling guilty about the extremist ends of one's religion, fundamentalist or otherwise, most have created elaborate "outs" in their discourse on faith (I know I have represented, at times in my life, the very left end of cafeteria-Catholicism).

Students, when asked to articulate their beliefs, often make the qualifying "move" of "I am born and raised a _____, though I definitely do not believe in or espouse all that many ________s do." In the struggle to find agency, craft the idea of our individuality, and avoid being caught in the ethical ambiguities and / or outright hypocracies of "private" faith and "public discourse," we tend to find ways to further deny the "however unconscious" influence of religion (which leads me back to books that examine the rhetoric of race, as mentioned last week in class, and the need to first "out" a discourse before it can be fully examined or critiqued).

Thought I'd go ahead and post this as I work my way through those last chapters. . .hope, as always, it makes some sense. . .