AN OPEN LETTER TO SIDNEY HOOK
609
Ignoring the need for a myth-and for an institution to support
and render acceptable the values which we must hold to survive in
freedom-also conflicts with the external demands of the moment.
We need a faith to transcend life, for the survival of our society will
require the sacrifice of individual lives. Reason cannot justify the un–
reasonable and inequitable individual sacrifices which its defense re–
quires. And
«non omnis moriar,"
or
«dulce et decorum est pro patria
mori:'
are neither comfort nor justification for an anonymous and per–
haps unsurvived death. Such sacrifices require either a transcendent myth
or a forceful totalitarian propaganda-monopoly. We have neither, and
thus we are necessarily on the defensive in this war, risking defeat.
Except for religion I am aware of no available myth strong enough
to hold against the rival secularized escha tologies (and to hold us together)
while tolerating the freedom which is at stake. Democracy means to
choose freely and to depend on ourselves for improvement.
It
does not
depend on grace, nor promise perfection-thus it cannot become the
needed myth without becoming undemocratic. For transcendent myth is
required just for the purpose of making tolerable the difference between
even the best of social systems and eschatological perfection-ultimate
justice. (Democracy requires such a myth more than other systems for it
intensifies by its improvements the wish for perfection).
If
this difference
is
no longer tolerated by virtue of myth (and people are not ready to
tolerate it otherwise) we will soon lose what liberty we have now.
Not unlike the democratic party, or Marxism, religion and the
Christian church have stood for many things in the course of history.
But
in
any period or place they advance particular policies. This is what
matters. You would not always have wanted to oppose these policies
although you probably would never have wholly approved. But of what
actual policy of any group could one approve wholly? Why would we
act as if total approval of each past and present policy were required?
One may oppose some of its policies without opposing the Church,
which more than once defended and preserved freedom and civilization
from external and internal dangers. Did not the successor of Peter and
Pontifex Maximus execute Girolamo Savonarola, thus saving the culture
of the Renaissance--our civilization-from destruction?
It is socially and politically not important whether religious doc–
trines are true. It matters only that they are believed. This belief is
necessary for the existence of an effective Church (although not suffi–
cient). And the social effects of the Church today (not in 1600) are
better, not than the blueprints of a mythless society, but than the
existing and threatening alternatives. I will not forsake the better for
