Beside politics and economy, religion stands as another important vector of social control. Religious dogma shares similarities with the globalist mind frame, as most religious systems recognize an elite at the top of a hierarchical power structure, and can operate on international scale. When established in a given nation or society, religious structures can subtract a certain amount of political authority from governments, and replace it with their own. This can take the form of supranational entities, which
influence can spread internationally. One may notice that the criteria identified by Pierre Hillard (2007:6) and reported in part 1.1 are here met, which may explain why he prefers to refer to globalism as mysticism rather than ideology.
One main advantage that religion possesses over politics is that its field of
influence crosses borders in a much easier fashion. Although certain states clearly impose official religious dogmas and repress others, a large number of countries allow religious freedom. Unless economy, religion is also immune to occasional crisis regarding material and human resources, and as such, can explain its prevalence over long periods in time. It may also be noted that the most influential religions today, such as Christianity, Islam, Judaism and Buddhism are monotheisms, a feature that facilitates justification regarding the existence of a unique set of spiritual intermediaries between the divine and the masses.
Having an elite chosen by a unique god may actually appear less democratic than an elite chosen under representative governments, but actually lead to the same tyrannical results.
Religious power structures carry the globalist ideology so efficiently that politics and religion are closely tied; one group failing to manage its alliances cunningly is sure to lose the game.
Religious power structures have, however, changed over time: as Protestantism was created to adapt the new paradigm created by the emergence of financial markets, current religious system are evolving along with popular cultures, beliefs and values.
Under localism, not only religious freedom appears to be more prevalent than within nations, but also different types of relations to the divine seem to emerge. Distinction can be made between religion and spirituality. The goal of the present section is to understand the current role of religion in regard to globalism and localism, as well as the kind of influence it casts on both social structures.
4.1 Globalism, Monotheism and Spiritual Intermediaries
4.1.1 The role of intermediaries and centralization in major religious structures
In his structural theory of imperialism, Galtung does not venture much into the analysis of religions as power structures. He does refer to religions in his later works, yet mostly regards them as positive ideologies for world peace, once understood and applied in international relations (Galtung and Scott 2008). He does not appear to perceive religion as another vector of imperialism, but as a solution to emancipate from its grip.
However, if the aim of secularism was to balance the tremendous social power acquired by European States, it can only mean that so much has been handed in to the Church. No matter how secularist modern states may claim to be, many still recognize the authority of high religious authorities, and most government officials ask for its benediction when entering the service (Hillard 2007:85).
From the point of view of social science, spiritual principles may not be regarded as relevant in a globalizing world which main architectural frame is economic, yet the very fact that its main actors belong to religious groups forces us to take the religious factor into account in our analysis. Logic dictates that the inner spiritual convictions of those in power must, to a certain extent, influence their actions against any irreligious vow. In other words, assuming that faith and religious beliefs, to whatever extent they may exist, are inherent to human consciousness, it is safe to assume that religion holds a decisive role in shaping social structures. Spiritual authorities, such as the Pope in Christianity, rabbis in Judaism or high monks in Buddhism, also often enjoy counseling
seats next to high political authorities. It is therefore safe to assume that they hold significant political influence on nations. Religions crossing borders and minds faster than globalization, spiritual policies can also have significant impact on other fields of study simply because of the relationships spiritual authorities share with governmental or banking authorities.
Speaking for God, a social function historically occupied by the clergy,
intrinsically grants access to elite status. Technocratic structures do not allow the profane to contradict the sayings of the expert. As a consequence, clerical oligarchies do not only benefit from the material contributions of their followers, but also obtain significant means of social control over them, since they enjoy authority to define “acceptable” and
“unacceptable” sets of values within the religious society. Such social structures leave tremendous room for power abuse and few for spiritual freedom. Those following spiritual paths emancipated from the Church have faced persecution, much in the way political opponents have from governments. Individuals who aren’t following the dogma are declared heretics, blasphemers, labeled as sects or are simply accused of insanity, which is almost identical to the globalist mechanism. Free spiritual groups that do not recognize the authority of the Church represent a threat for its authority. This is precisely where religion and spirituality can be set apart: religion implies dependency toward an elite class, while spirituality implies autonomy.
In that sense, religion would create vertical structures, while spirituality would create horizontal ones. Religious structures would therefore be defined by the presence of
clerical authorities, which will enjoy social immunity and privileges placing them above common believers. However, this is not to say that power abuse necessarily emerges from all hierarchical religious structures. Only once the actual interest and agenda of religious authorities is known can their acts be fully understood. Nevertheless, major religious structures do imply a vertical social class-based construction, which forbids the mass a direct relation with the divine. Religious authorities act as intermediaries between God and the people; a function which, in the absence of God’s direct speech, leaves all power in its hands. Religion draws its social power from its intermediate position.
In order to carry out such a task, large, institutionalized religions, by their very dogmatic structure, demand a power hierarchy to function, just as political or economic structures do. Although religious leaders have long been sharing power with royal and political authorities, secularism attempted to create distance between them, in order to reduce the influence of the Church on governments, and vice versa. In some cases, the religious elite has been willing to emancipate from governmental control, establishing its headquarters in independent zones, or remain nomadic. The Holy See in the Vatican City State shows the Catholic Church’s will to retain a land on its own since early Christian times. This will has survived the Roman Empire downfall, and continues to exert its influence nowadays. Islam, although recognizing no official religious elite, established the city of Mecca in Saudi Arabia as its holy center and pilgrimage site, and denies the right to non-Muslims to enter the city. The city of Jerusalem is also considered holy by Judaism, Christianity and Islam altogether, and has been subject to several political and
military conflicts in history. In all cases, one may notice a clear will from religious structures to have a land of their own, in order to make their influence concrete in the material world. Once such a land has been obtained, it functions a Center, which can then expand its influence over Peripheries, in a similar way to nations and empires.
However, since religious Centers are not recognized as nation states, religious rules can more easily enter countries, coexisting with national ones. Conflict may therefore appear between the two. It has been the case, for instance, on questions
regarding abortion, the conditions of meat consumption, the legitimacy of medicine and science, etc. Religious followers are subjects to the influence of contradictory powers, being stuck in a network of intertwined vertical power structures. For instance, a
European Christian is subject to decisions of supranational entities such as the European Union, to the rules of his own country, and to the ones of the Christian Church. Far from emancipating citizens from power centralization and globalism, religious power
structures actually add to individual liberty depravation, by creating more constraints for followers, and retroactively, more power for its authorities. In that sense, religion can be seen as another vector of globalism.
4.1.2 The example of Noahidism according to Hillard
Political Science PhD and French essayist Pierre Hillard, whose research deals with both historical and modern aspects of globalism, has dedicated a large part of his work to understanding the correlation between globalism and religion. As mentioned in
section 1.2, he defines globalism as “a mysticism that consists in reorganizing the world around spiritual and temporal principles,” a process that is similar to the one of religions (Hillard 2007:6). According to his research, the dogma of major religions have
tremendous influence on the development of national ideologies, and are closely bound to political and economic policies, due to the harmony of interest of both religious and national elite classes. Such harmony of interest can be explained by social class proximity, and would lead to the hyperclass mentality mentioned in section 2.1.3.
For Hillard, most major religious ideologies prevalent today have globalist characteristics and expectations. The two main characteristics of a globalist religion would be monotheism, and the presence of religious magistrates acting as intermediaries between the unique God and the people (Hillard 2012c). Monotheism is preferred, as belief in several gods may dilute the power of religious Centers. Several gods means several types of cults, which multiplies worship places and knowledge sources. A fair example of modern polytheism may be Japanese Shinto, which recognizes and worships the divine presence in Nature. Polytheism creates possibilities for the profane to create a direct connection with the divine, and enjoy it with a greater degree of freedom. Such a system therefore allows the existence of local gods and beliefs, which in turn generates local religious authorities whose knowledge can often become more relevant to local populations than the one of central authorities (Uchiyama 2012). Such a belief system dilutes the power and control of religious Centers. On the other hand, monotheism
homogenizes worship procedures and centralizes it in time and space, making it easier for a unique Center and elite to claim exclusivity over access to divine knowledge (i.e. by
restricting access to divine scriptures and high religious status positions). This is why a globalist religion would deny direct access to God to the profane and advocate the use of religious intermediaries, which leads to the second characteristic.
According to Hillard, in order to be globalist in Nature, a religion must include magistrates that would form a religious elite, which is to stand between God and
populations. The elite and commoners would therefore have to follow two different sets of rules. While the clerical oligarchy would supposedly be under the jurisdiction of God, followers would be under the jurisdiction of courts of justice, under magistrate
supervision. Such a vertical structure may certainly remind one of the imperialist and globalist structures analyzed in part 2.1. The Magistrate status gives the religious elite full political immunity, and almost total freedom regarding the administration of followers. This ensures that strict hierarchy is maintained, leading to the religious Center/Elite vs. Periphery/Followers type of social organization in space and time.
Taking these characteristics into account, Hillard refers to Talmudist Judaism as one of the most representative actors of globalism. Talmudist Judaism is monotheist in nature, hierarchical in structure and would aim at reformatting all non-Judaic religions toward what the Talmud refers to as “Noahidism” (Hillard 2012c). Noahidism is a spiritual doctrine which ultimate goal is to create a universal religion based on the worship of a unique Jewish god, but which principles are not to apply in the same way to Jewish (Yahudim) and non-Jewish (Goyim) (Wikinoah 2014). According to such
doctrine, the Yahudim are to follow the teachings of the Torah in order to become a class
of magistrates (or priests), who are to play the role of intermediaries between the people and God, preaching certain moral principles to non-Jewish people. Such an
ideology/social function is referred to as “Mosalism” (Hillard 2012c). On the other hand, the Goyim are forbidden to read the Torah, and must abide by their own distinct set of rules, called the Noahide Laws. Those are defined as follows.
• Idolatry is forbidden. Man is commanded to believe in the One God alone and
worship only Him.
• Incestuous and adulterous relations are forbidden.
• Murder is forbidden. The life of a human being, formed in God's image, is
sacred.
• Cursing the name of God is forbidden.
• Theft is forbidden.
• Eating the flesh of a living animal is forbidden. (This was commanded to Noah
for the first time along with the permission of eating meat. The rest were already given to Adam in the Garden of Eden.)
• Mankind is commanded to establish courts of justice and a just social order to
enforce the first six laws and enact any other useful laws or customs. (One in Messiah Congregation 2014)
The first Noahide law forbids idolatry other than the one of the One God, which is to say that it does not tolerate polytheism. Noahidism does tolerate the existence of other
religions, as long as they are strictly monotheist, and follow the Noahide principles (Hillard 2012c). However, those are considered incomplete, and must eventually be replaced by the original religion, which is claimed as being Judaism (Ibid).
The Noahide laws may appear to reflect universal values, and as such cause few harm to the societies on which they are to apply. However, that these rules are not to apply to Jewish people (the Yahudim), whose role is to guide humanity while being intermediaries between the unique god and the people (Hillard 2012c). In other words, they are to be the chosen, absolute elite. The existence of two distinct sets of rules divides society into two distinct classes, creating a social structure that is intrinsically unequal.
The courts of justice mentioned by the seventh Noahide law are to enforce it onto the Goyim, not the Yahudim. It may not take too much imagination to imagine how much social damage can be done by an elite enjoying freedom to commit crime against the inferior class without any risk of legal reprisal. Under such a dichotomy, the geopolitical distribution of the land is to follow the same principle. Centers of religious power are to take precedence over Peripheries in terms of rights.
Countries are to be fragmented into smaller entities (closer to the size of regions) and continental blocks of those are to be unified under a global government and a
homogenized humanity (Hillard 2004). All nations should be managed in an undifferentiated way, except for the one nation being home to the king and his magistrates/clergy (i.e. Israel, the Vatican, the Mekkah, etc.). Such a hierarchical structure is based on the near absolute power of a small religious elite, reigning over humanity as a whole, and its principles are certainly similar to those of globalism.
One may argue that religious principles, although playing their part in shaping social values and structures, are not at the center of political and economic systems.
However, the structural proximity of religious and political elites allows both ideologies to converge toward each other. Regarding the impact of religious principles on national policies, it may be worth adding that on the occasion of the Education Day on March 26th, 1991, the U.S. Congress signed a joint resolution recognizing the Seven Noahide Laws as being “the basis of civilized society” (Congress.gov 2014). The President and vice President paid tribute to Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, leader of the
Lubavitch movement, recognizing him as a great spiritual leader, whose contribution will help “turn [attention] to education and charity to return the world to the moral and ethical values contained in the Seven Noahide Laws” (Ibid). Whether U.S. Congress authorities advocate the application of these laws to all human beings alike, or wish to let a certain elite stand above it is unclear, therefore leaving the door open to interpretation.
Nevertheless, the correlation between religious scriptures and national policies, as well as its impact on national education can clearly be seen in this example.
Although Hillard has certainly identified its globalist characteristics, Talmudist Judaism is not the only religion to include such elitist principles. Christianity, for instance, is also a monotheist religion that has established similar globalist-like power structures over a large amount of time. Its small clerical elite has been enjoying steady privileged status over followers, and these privileges have been passed on through generations among bloodlines and powerful families within the Christian sphere. Christianity’s head,
the Pope, represents the voice of God on Earth, and is therefore the privileged mediator between the divine and the people. He is surrounded and assisted by a hierarchy of high priests, such as the Society of Jesus, whose statuses allow their bearers numerous material privileges and key roles in the evolution of the dogma. As the precursor of Christianity, Judaism has had great influence on its morality and principles, although the two have since entered a rivalry relation (Hayes 1953:2). Today, both religions are fighting to impose their own principles onto followers, and sometimes, with the help of the political sphere, onto entire nations.
Islam is also monotheist, yet it bears particularity in the fact that it recognizes no official religious elite, nor allows any clerical intermediaries between God and the people. The Imams are indeed recognized as knowledgeable authorities, yet retain a limited, practical leader status that is not to interfere with each individual’s relation to God (Quran 50:16). Prophets along the bloodline of Muhammad are sporadic and are not embodied by a static social class of any sort. The animosity of Judaism and Christianity against such a degree of spiritual liberty on the individual level is therefore
understandable, since it may raise questions about the need for religious elites. Although being monotheist, Islam disapproves of the existence of a privileged religious elite, even if it also shows certain limits in some aspects (i.e. access to the sacred facilities of the Mekkah as well as to certain religious knowledge is however forbidden to non-Muslims).
Even in polytheist religions and cultures such as the Chinese and Japanese ones, royal and emperor bloodlines are to be of divine origin, which defines ancestral families as intermediaries between god(s) and the people. Such a status places royal families
above any human law and maintains their political power in the bloodline over centuries.
In Hindu religion, the Indian caste system strictly organizes society into a hierarchy of hereditary groups, insuring the perpetual domination of an elite. Such examples of elitist structures can indeed be found in several religions and cultures.
It appears that the world’s monotheist religious structures present elitist and globalist characteristics. They are based on an elite class of priests that is to play the role of intermediaries between a unique God and populations, and as such, enjoy immunity for their actions in the material world. According to the definitions proposed in section 1.2, such religious dogma clearly advocates vertical social structures, which political power are the exclusivity of an elite of religious intermediaries, not of the people. In that sense, large, major world religions can be seen as globalist in structure. In the examples previously proposed, it is hard to not see the same power strategy played over and over again: the one of a human elite "chosen" by superior entities, enjoying full religious, political, economic and military power, and being above any law of conduct they can prescribe for the rest of humanity. Although religious scriptures may not originally approve of the existence of such power structures in human societies, time and History have built religious empires just as they have built political ones. Under such
circumstances, it may be safe to assume that official religious structures impede spiritual freedom more than they support it, which raises questions over their current legitimacy and relevance.
4.2 The Role of Religion and Spirituality in Local Communities
4.2.1 Global god vs. local gods
The previous section analyzed the globalist characteristics in world religions. The imperial reach of global religious centers such as the ones of Christianity, Judaism or Islam allows them power over far away populations as sure as is they were governments, creating another layer of global control network over peripheries. How does this reach currently affect local and intentional communities? Does religion have the same social role in these communities as it has in modern capitalist nations?
Religion and social power have long walked hand in hand. Religious authority shaped social organization at both macro and micro levels. Although global-size dogmas such as Catholicism presented infinite nuances depending on the country, local culture and size of the communities where it was preached, churches at the center of villages remained a vector of local cohesiveness and social control (Bloch 1939:130). With time and the progressive centralization of power on the global scale, the grip of local churches loosened, and authority tended to concentrate in larger centers such as cities. Eventually, this culminated into the creation of sacred global centers (i.e. Vatican City, Mecca, etc.).
Local churches and the media currently serve as relays of information from center
authorities to periphery followers. Recent developments in science and the rise of atheism have further weakened the importance of religious practice in everyday life, especially in