Perhaps they are subconsciously aware of it. That is why they have to go around muttering affirmations to the contrary.
Those same "devout Catholics" can also be found identifying as secular "progressives" or whatever other word is trendy and evokes implications of moral superiority and righteousness. The religions and pantheons may differ but the core psychological mechanisms are the same.
The devout Catholic knows all the canned responses and hymns by rote, but only when the priest is there to prompt him; he forgets his moral code the second he has stood up from the pews.
Analogously the secular progressive will eagerly output all the tokens expected of a "good person" when adequately prompted with contemporary inclusive language; yet they don't appear to be able to keep to their principles in other environments when they aren't being supplied with the exact same context and tokens.
Personally, while I'd rather people be good, I'll settle for them pretending really hard.
What a dismissive and lazy thought terminating cliche with literally zero informational content whatsoever.
> Personally, while I'd rather people be good, I'll settle for them pretending really hard.
The point is people don't even pretend. They receive a prompt then parrot the response by rote which is never understood and then immediately forgotten; by the time all the lip service has been paid and all the tokens emitted they don't even know what it is they're supposed to pretend to do.
Saying the right thing is a good start.
⁵And 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. [...] ⁷But when ye pray, use
not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think
that they shall be heard for their much speaking. [0]
It's less to do with there being more virtuous actions than "vain repetitions" and the parroting of empty words, more to do with the fact that such signaling in the "corners of the streets" is already completely devoid of any virtue other than the immediate (and only) "reward" of merely being seen as virtuous.
> Saying the right thing is a good start.
So this is an argument in favor of calling one's self a "deep thinker" or "a good person" or "authentic" as mentioned in TFA? I mean, these are probably among the "right things" one can say about themselves, so why not start there?
[0] Matthew 6:5,7 KJV
Beyond that however, how we act is, to some degree, dependent on how we think we should behave, and consistently using certain types of self definition will affect that. Someone who consistently identifies themself in a certain way is, at least ever so slightly, more likely to behave that way.
Do you ever extend such benefit of the doubt to bible thumping creationists? Because the typical progressive characterization of such types is that they play up just how much they walk in Christ's footsteps while simultaneously being utterly bereft of virtue; yet based on what you've said I would think identification with Christ should have imbued them with a moral compass.
That is, in fact, essentially the assertion made by the comment that started this entire thread [0]:
> Some of the worst behavior ive seen in my life has been done by devout catholics. who themselves cant see the consequences of their actions. and im not knocking religion, i just had to live alot of life to start being alarmed by outspoken moralists.
Like, gay people aren't going to gay bars and drag shows to signal how woke and cool they are. They're going there because that's where they can be them, and that's where they're gonna have fun.
Or, when it comes to identity groups that they're not a part of, there's usually some overlap. Like a lot of the sort of underground gay scene and the black communities go hand and hand, and you'll see the adoption and flow of things like language and culture between them.