RE: Bash Christianity!

RE: Bash Christianity! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

Amaros -> RE: Bash Christianity! (9/11/2006 10:18:38 PM)
Thanks. quote: The American psyche is an extreme expression of a condition endemic in societies which need to believe themselves terminal and invincible, and which are therefore prone to perpetual anxiety. As the sciences continue to disclose an infini~ of life possibilities, so the agencies of political economy and weaponry made possible by those sciences need to possess the clue, the key, the central energy, the wonder particle of power, the unhindered means of manipulation and penetration of mind and body. This condition becomes the pattern of justifications for hierarchical Control - for example, for the Army's investigations into the effects of LSD on human subjects. The explorations of science fiction and speculative psychology notoriously become political and socio-economic reality, and the required leader becomes the dream agent and executor of these powers, a figure of desire and necessity. .... But extreme radical action can become coutinized action: Davis cites as an instance the abolitionist view of the Slave Power conspiracy of 1840 and the mid-twentieth century issue of Black Power. American colonists found seventeenth and eighteenth century Catholic Europe a conspiracy against liberty. By 1890 the villainous Jesuits were less feared than the atheists of the French Revolution and Illuminism. And by the mid-twentieth century Notre Dame had become a team, as had the Salem Witches. But vestigial fears remained. Once the United States began to advertise itself in the 1 790s as the last modern society - terminal and Christian, at once radical and reactionary, a democracy determined to inherit empire - designs appeared to subvert it (Jesuits, Jews, Illuminists, Communists, and so on) and pundits appeared who would 'save the nation.'29 Davis concludes that 'Americans have long been disposed to search for subversive enemies and to construct terrifying dangers from fragmentary and highly circumstantial evidence.'31~ Roger Daniels' Concentration Camp USA documents the consequences for the US Japanese community during World War 11.31 By the 1950s, the realities of Soviet power and internal tyranny had been turned into 'international communism,' invented as a permission to curtail any system other than American-style capitalist democracy and as a warrant for vast budgeting on behalf of military-industrial interests. All protest against successive administrations became 'communist or communist-inspired,' and the FBI and CIA became autonomous (but publicly financed) agencies of intervention on behalf of anything that was defined as being in 'American interests.' An actual or supposed threat to America became a threat to law, order and various brands of Christianity and Judaism. Such transformations have a long history. Davis cites the Jeffersonian Abraham Bishop's tirade against the Hamiltonian 'power elite' in 1802, entitled Proofi of a Conspira~ Against Chnstiani~, and the Government of the United States. In fact it was not only the ~depravity... noticeable in the Jews' that maddened Bishop but Hamilton's funding system, which he described as 'the radical cause of our evils, the political fall, which subjected us to the loss of an American Eden.'32 Such is Hofstadter's 'paranoid style,' defined as an 'enhanced feeling for the non-rational side of politics,' a belief in some ~singie center' to be 'eliminated by some . . . final act of victory.' His examples range from a 1798 sermon to a 1951 McCarthy oration. But he does not understand that his material is more than a rhetoric of argument or style adopted by some 'perfect model of malice, a kind of amoral superman: sinister, ubiquitous, powerful, cruel, sensual, luxury-loving . . . a free, active, demonic agent.'33 That figure is part of the history of what Eric Bentley called 'heroic vitalism' and of the nature of the sexuality of power. It is far more than a representation of eighteenth century reason and transcendental romanticism applied to political ambition or any overwhelming desire to be 'Control'.34 - Eric Mottram: Out of Sight but Never Out of Mind: Fears of Invasion in American Culture

Amaros -> RE: Bash Christianity! (9/11/2006 10:22:34 PM)
Continued: quote: Hofstadter cites the assumed threat of the Bavarian Illuminati, founded, appropriately, in 1776 by Adam Weishaupt, professor of law at Ingolstadt University, and part of the anti-clerical rationalism of the period. The movement aimed at converting the human race to reason, and managed to convince a number of German rulers and, it is said, Herder, Goethe, and Pestalozzi.35 That the movement drew highly ambivalent responses in New York and Philadelphia had more to do with current fascinations with the sources of power than Hofstadter cares to mention. One way of entering this part of the field - and in order to place it in context ~or later use - is through the writings of James Frazer. In Totemism and Exogamy (1910) he invents a classic statement on the conflict between law and instincts (a word which Freud - who drew on Frazer's book for Totem and Taboo - also used as a basis for his theories of repression): 'Civilized men have come to the conclusion that the satisfaction of these natural instincts is detrimental to the general interests of society.' For Frazer, sex ceremonies are indescribable,' 'obscene,' or 'secret' immoral practices. Sexuality equals savagery, and is to be curtailed. The villains are Moors, Turks, Saxons and Danes. Civilization thinly covers 'superstition' and is perpetually threatened by the underground: barbarians, savages, the body, the unconscious, the proletariat. In 'The Scope of Social Anthropology' (1908) he produces a single fantasy location for his fears, which is also a useful summary of some of the panics that lay behind invasion psychosis: 'The ground beneath our feet is thus, as it were, honeycombed by unseen forces. We appear to be standing on a volcano which may at any moment break out in smoke and fire to spread ruin and devastation among the gardens and palaces of ancient culture wrought so laboriously by the hands of many generations.'36

Amaros -> RE: Bash Christianity! (9/11/2006 10:23:45 PM)
Last one: quote: But underground is a source for labour as well as change, and the need for a perpetual cheap labour force of immigrants and slaves was underpinned by theories of natural power held underground in the form of human energy. It is also a source of irrational as well as rational rebellion, and therefore an ambiguous agency against stasis. As Wilhelm Reich demonstrated so clearly, fascism appealed lo 'the irrational, mystical and emotionally infantile elements in people . . . to reinforce their need to cling to the authority-figures who promised a "new life." '38 Fascism promises the protection of purity at the basic level of 'blood.' For the fascist, the bad and the subversive are impure, dark and dirty, and are associated with the diabolic threats of disease and sexuality. Blacks and Jews become embodiments of the night side of life, the corruption of light, candour, and whatever the patriarchal and paternal, in its oedipal legacy, insists is permanent and good.

juliaoceania -> RE: Bash Christianity! (9/11/2006 11:09:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Amaros deleted because I missed your answer

juliaoceania -> RE: Bash Christianity! (9/11/2006 11:31:27 PM)
As an anthropologist I have never heard of this theory or of "accentric"... interesting

BlkTallFullfig -> Christian zealots! (9/11/2006 11:38:27 PM)
Don't even get me started on my impression of new radical Christianity... I've recently learned that I need to ask for clarification when someone says "I'm a Christian." Being one myself, I never thought there would be a great divide in how I vs the other would view things. [&:] M

WhipTheHip -> RE: Bush administration collars maker fetish films (9/12/2006 12:21:14 AM)
This country was founded by Free Masons, not Christians. Every signator of the Declaration of Independance was a Free Mason, save one. No some may say that Free Mason were Christians, but the they were certainly a diffirent kind of Christian than your garden variety Roman Catholic or Protestant.

Amaros -> RE: Bash Christianity! (9/12/2006 6:16:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania As an anthropologist I have never heard of this theory or of "accentric"... interesting "Acentric", as LaM so thoughtfully corrected me - it's generally applied in connection to primates, but appears to work similarly in humans, albeit in a highly abstracted way - re: Goering - it appears to stem from the same basic behavior pattern however. I can't recall immediately who first advanced it, and you don't hear about it often - often enough, I think. I first heard of it in Elaine Morgans "The Descent of Woman", who although not an anthropologist, had some interesting insights into human behavior, particularly sexuality - ground seldom covered by anybody else.

Amaros -> RE: Christian zealots! (9/12/2006 6:28:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BlkTallFullfig Don't even get me started on my impression of new radical Christianity... I've recently learned that I need to ask for clarification when someone says "I'm a Christian." Being one myself, I never thought there would be a great divide in how I vs the other would view things. [&:] M True, and this whole passive aggresive thing that keep popping up (see LaM, above), is getting pretty annoying. Part of centripetalization is to unite people over oversimplifications, for Fascists for example it's often race, sexual orientation, etc., but religion gets employed often enough. The problem with it, is that it's open ended: once your enemy is obliterated, then who is the Leopard? Typically, it means you have to keep searching for new ones: with the fall of Communism, and PC sentiments finally giving Blacks a break, liberals had to be targeted, if there were no liberals, then somebody else. Since it accentuates differences, and we're all different, it never really ends, and it wouldn't be long before it was protestant against Catholic, Baptist against Mormon, etc., etc., and so on. The religious zealots around here often amuse themselves in their off time snickering about how their religious rivals will never make it to heaven because of minor dogmatic differences, and in the middle ages, of course, this debate often turned lethal. It often leaves you out inthe cold if you're just looking for connection to the infinite, and not swept up in the obsession with the politic - you could well have your faith questioned, simply for sticking to it

Amaros -> RE: Christian zealots! (9/12/2006 7:38:16 AM)
Another observation is that once this precedent is set, it requires a centripetal resonse form the opposition to counter - Hitler centripetalized the Germans against Jews and Communists, and specifically a number of insecurities the Germans had at that time, opressed as they were under the treaty of Versilles - economic bankrupcy and collapse, and a general sense of claustrophobia - the Volk movement "Land and Space" was instrumental in mobilizing the invasion of Poland. Allying itself with Russia and Japan (who it would have turned on in time - it did turn on Russia), it also tried to keep England and America at bay with diplomacy - it took the attack on Pearl Harbor to finally centripetalize isolationist America, although we had been helping Great Britain out logistically for a while already. Similarly, it took the sinking of the Lusitania to drag us into WWI Bush's rating were in the high 90's immediately following 9-11, and approval for the Afghanistan invasion was also high - it didn't start to slip until just after the invasion of Iraq, when it appeared that the primary goal: to find and neutralize Al Quaeda, seemed to be taking a backseat to some unnamed imperialist goals - immediatly, various forms of the term "treason" began cropping up not only in the administrations unnoficial mouthpieces on talk radio, but from high ranking administration official themselves. As the penalty for treason is summary execution, it serves not only as a threat, but increase nationalist sentiment in their voting bloc. Less dramatically, republicans are startign to ramp up the centripetalization against liberals in preparation for the upcoming election, I listened to Rush Limbaugh yesterday, and it was all about how liberals "won't protect us", and will leave us vulnerable to terrorists, etc., with a special emphasis on Clinton and his failure to extradite Bin Laden before he was a wanted man - no mention that only a few years earlier, the republican congress was ready to give OBL a medal, nor that the Saudi influence that Clinton appears to have been succeptible to, holds just as much sway over the Bush administration - re: OBL family being flown out of the country immediately following 9-11, and the administrations reluctance to persue the banking/finance angle, as all these trails appeared to trace back to SA. The democrats have been forced to centripetalize in order to counter it, and of course this is touted as a sign of their "lust for power" If you recall, initial disagreement between the parties mostly centered on policy, environmental and infrastructure concerns, although the rhetoric was just as inflamatory - such policy issues have become issues of life and death apparently, and they are - to uncompetitive corporations. To bring it back around to the OP, these porn prosecutions are part of the centripetalization effort, specifically, a bone for the religious hard right, part of the republican core bloc, and is every bit as cynical as Goerings indicates in his quote - once the election is over, gas price will rise again, and the religious right will be placated with lip service and an occasional bone (faith based community financing, etc. which also serves to politically co-opt these organizations through greenmail, gay marriage, etc.), while the republicans go about their real business of consolidating a corporatist political hegemony. Really, the only people that can call him, and the neo-cons on this with any effect, is the religious consensus, because they are the people he needs to secure a close vote.

Amaros -> RE: Christian zealots! (9/12/2006 7:58:59 AM)
Note the way these prosecutions follow the appeasment pattern: the targets are either small time, or unpopular - that way the administration doesn't frighten the corporate level players with more resources enough to mobilize in self defense, but still grab the headlines, and appear to be "doing something about it". "It" being of course, things offensive to official Christian PC sensibilities. Unfortunately, this sort of cynical manipulation undermines the rule of law - in an administration that already appears to think rule of law means they get to make the laws, and follow them if it's convenient - this should be of concern to anyone that could potentially become a target of arbitrary prosecution, which frankly, is everybody who imagines themselves protected by the constitution - it sets a precedent.

juliaoceania -> RE: Christian zealots! (9/12/2006 8:06:54 AM)
Centripetal is a very lovely word, but I am used to hearing terms to discuss political factors and historical ones such as consolidatoion of power, unifying force, and push and pull factors. Centripetal forces were a major theoretical construct in my studies of geography, whether physical or cultural. My comment before was because I had not heard of this theory in my "basic" anthropology courses, and I have had quite a few, and you said that it was basic anthropology. I do know whart the words centripetal, and acentric mean. In the context of your post I was not sure if you meant eccentric or acentric. I am trying to not assume what people mean if I am not clear on it BTW, Sinergy's post was to me about why you may not have answered my question, he may have jumped to the wrong conlusions, but seeing that this thread is like three train wrecks in one... it was an honest mistake.

Amaros -> RE: Christian zealots! (9/12/2006 8:12:43 AM)
This particular terminology is borrowed from botany: centripetal: arranged about a center (as inthe petals of a flower) - it's hierarchial, organized - you could say D/s is centripetal. Acentric: without center - essentially, independent thought and action - in primate terms, looking for food, grooming, playing, etc., although some or all of these activities tend to be implicated in the underlying alpha structure - grooming often indicates or reifies status, alpha hierarchies are sorted out during play fights, etc. - acentric-centripetal means that the underlying power structure remains largely transparent, until such time as the Leopard (threat) appears.

Amaros -> RE: Christian zealots! (9/12/2006 8:14:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania BTW, Sinergy's post was to me about why you may not have answered my question, he may have jumped to the wrong conlusions, but seeing that this thread is like three train wrecks in one... it was an honest mistake. I was putting the kids to bed.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Bush administration collars maker fetish films (9/12/2006 9:08:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY To summarize what I think I've been saying in this thread: 1. I first started out by saying that people who rail against Christianity because of all the bad things it members did or does, should be careful and not become the thing that they were condemning. 2. Next, I posited that not every single thing about Christianity was bad. 3. Finally (about where you came in) I was saying that religions have an impact on the societies in which they exist, and different societies and religions fail or succeed based on their interactions. That's the meat of it. Let me know where you take exception. quote: ORIGINAL: NastyDaddy Your views are your views, I'm not at issue with that at all, and of course have my own views as well. Actually, Nasty, I don't think we disagree in the basics at all. There are a few assumptions I made early in the thread that I didn't mention above that have an impact. These were: 1. "Faith" as in a propensity for a type of belief system that can be called "religion" is something that is inherent in the genetic, evolutionary structure of the human animal. There is some recent research that supports this theory. 2. I use "religion" in a broader sense than the commonly defined one of a system of beliefs that includes a deity. I am using it in the sense of a coherent system of beliefs that gives a certain world view of how the world works, and gives guidance on how an individual should act. By this definition, there are several systems of belief that I define as "religion" such as human secularism, and Communism that are not normally seen as such. 3. I define "good" or "success" of a religion not on any of the common moral grounds, but in the evolutionary sense of survival and reproduction. 4. I define "moral" for the purposes of discussion as actions that strengthen a society in which a religion operates to improve a society's chances for survival and which gives the greatest freedom to the individual. These two parts of "moral" may come into conflict, especially in the short term, and the second half of my concept of "moral" is based on my own upbringing within the Western tradition. In certain times in history, and in certain situations the reduction of human free will can be a survival trait for a society or a religion, but in the long run, I do not wish to accept such a world. I have no desire to be a member of any society or world in which people are reduced to an "ant colony". This is part of why I said it is impossible to be totally free of bias in any discussion of religion and morals. In the end, everyone will make a value judgement about what they consider as an acceptable society in which to live. Now, another issue that has reared it's head several times is the issue of "culture", "civilization", "nation", "nation-state", and "society". My interests in the social aspects of the human animal has been life-long. I have degrees in these fields (but I don't claim any special authority in this debate, just stating a fact. My arguments must stand or fall on it's own logic), and have read and studied history (especially military history). Anthropology and the natural sciences that relate to human development are things that I claim no special expertise other than an avid general interest. What I have found is that there really isn't an agreement across the social science disciplines as to a common definition of any of these terms. And that they are defined differently in different eras of human history and depending on what the issue you are discussing actually is. I could go into a lengthy discussion of the subject, and will if it becomes a primary issue, but it's actually worth a thread or two (or a book) all it's own. Suffice it to say, that when I say any of these things, I am talking about a group of people who share certain traits, beliefs and common history. A political history (as in a common national government) may or may not be part of that common heritage. Now, if you do not accept any of these assumptions and definitions, you probably won't agree with me. However, if you do accept them, then your last post can be seen as agreeing with me. quote: ORIGINAL: NastyDaddy In regards to number 3 where I first spoke: I would suggest that at best this mindset does not apply across the board and is suited more towards a not-yet-failed society of larger proportions in which a state religion is a required fundamental of it's citizens within it's society (even those not living inside it's borders). For example, impoverished nations whose citizens are expected to follow what is perceived as the state religion by those in power. This is not a free choice offered to it's citizens, many examples of this phenom exist in middle eastern nations. Does this make their society more prone to success? No, it simply creates an oppressive nation of which to be a citizen. Will the society fail based on the religious oppression? That would depend largely on how many infidels can be tortured and shot in the head on any given dark night when the goon squads come out to enforce the state religion. Sooner or later the citizens will tire of the cycle and revolt. The revolt can come from within or from external sources on the periphery. I have no disagreement with this paragraph. quote: ORIGINAL: NastyDaddy There are numerous smaller less populated civilizations that prospered and were efficient in their function, often without religious oppression... or no religion at all, until exposed to outsiders who came, destroyed and left, leaving only remnants of their success. Examples would be the Easter Island natives, most African tribes... following their own natural order, unadulterated by "better religions" and the crusaders or missionaries sent to convert the lowly heathens. Well, I agree with this paragraph as well. But based on the assumptions I listed above, these societies or cultures without a "religion" or without an oppressive religion did not survive to the modern era. By my definition, this means that they are unsuccessful, regardless of how laudable they were. Inherent in what I think you are saying about them is that you yourself are making some type of moral judgement as to their "worth", I just don't know your definition. quote: ORIGINAL: NastyDaddy The tendencies of various religions to kill or destroy other forms (or absences) of religions make them parasitic elements, and not necessarily a measure of a successful society by any respect. This in turn makes it difficult to accept a simple philosophy that a society will achieve success or will fail based simply on any given religion. Those who wish to decide and attempt to control which is the "accepted" religion are more often the cause of the society failing. A religion (or religious beliefs) can't be parasitic, if they are indeed a natural part of the human genetic makeup. Another way to look at this might be that the real issue is the human desire for power and control. Religious institutions are just one more method used by people to seek and achieve power and control. If there was no such thing as religion, do you really think that mankind wouldn't have a history of genocide, war, torture and murder? In other words, I think many of the people who castigate religion as THE instrument of those things are confused. They are blaming the tool, and not the tool user (Baaaad saw, you cut off Johnnie's finger!) . Is it that religion is restrictive, wasteful of lives and petty - or is it the people who use religion as a cloak for their own benefit? Was it the Christian religion that was the major impetus for the destruction of the Meso-American cultures by the Spanish Conquistadors, or was it the avaricious desire for gold, property and land and the normal human male desire for adventure? (As a side bar, I think this is exactly the argument used by many who claim that the war in Iraq is really nothing more than an attempt to get control of the oil supplies of the Middle East by the US. They totally discredit Bush's claims of trying to bring democracy to the Middle East. Yet these same people will not apply the same reasoning when it comes to anywhere that "religion" is claimed to be the "cause" of death, invasion or political repression. They seem to want their cake, and eat it too. I don't think you can have it both ways.) quote: ORIGINAL: NastyDaddy The true irony being that people are continuously killed or exterminated over religion, which is why I feel religion has no place in the governing process, and should not be constituted as an element of success or failure of any given society. Religious zealotry is often warlord'ish, and typically constitutes the potential ruin of the society it is allowed to operate and manifest itself in as the "accepted" religion... the "right" god for all memebers of the society. This is what distinguishes most modern larger societies from more primitive larger ones. The exclusion of church from state funtions is a key factor in the successes enjoyed by those larger prosperous societies. "Religious zealotry is often warlord'ish". Yup. True. The second highlighted point of yours, I do not disagree with at all (does that surprise you?). I don't think I've ever argued that the church should be part of the state functions. What I've said is, that often it has been, simply because both religion and state are methods of control, and as human institutions, share some common functions and features. However, do realize that this point of view that you and I share is something that comes out of the Western tradition. It's something that we in the West have learned over our own long bloody history. It is something that focuses on the second part of my definition of moral i.e. something that gives the maximum freedom to the individual, and this is a very Western point of view. We are biased in favor of this. Just recognize the bias. Now, time for a new concept. Since we agree that Church and State (notice the caps) should not share temporal power - what is the purpose of religion in a State or society? Is there one? Some will say no, that religion is "bad" and should be totally discarded. I think this is an error for two reasons. The first is that since my definition of "religion" is something that is inherent in man, you can't eliminate it. And attempting to suppress it will inevitablity result in failure. And, because the people who wish to eliminate it have a faulty world view, the failure may (probably) will result in just the opposite from what they intend. In other words, by attempting to suppress the innate drive for religion, the suppression may hide or mask it's activity, and put it under pressure, and eventually cause a destructive counter-reaction. (Think a pressure cooker with no relief valve). Just like your first example, where you said that eventually a repressive religious state will eventually suffer a revolution (from within, or from without), so will the "modern secularists" who attempt to suppress the religious expression of the population in which they (the secularist) have control. The second, related point is that "faith", "belief" or "religion" can indeed serve a purpose in a State, and I propose that it should. Not one of control, but one of limiting control, one of guidance and one of being a "brake" on other normal human impulses (especially on the over-extension of the ego). These two points above are summaries, and deserve and (I'm sure) will receive a lot of debate, so I've just summarized them. But, if we are in agreement about the rest, we can proceed with that discussion. FHky (note: I'm going to be away on a business trip for several days, and will not have much time to devote to this thread until next week. If anyone wants to seriously continue the discussion, I'd suggest another thread, as I think the focus of this one has been pretty seriously fractured).

Lordandmaster -> RE: Christian zealots! (9/12/2006 3:45:45 PM)
It's used in anthropology, julia. I'm still hunting for the first use of the terminology (just for my own interest); I don't think it was Morgan's book, but I'm not finding anything older than that, either. Like you, I had no idea of what he was talking about until he explained that he meant "acentric" as opposed to "centripetal." quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania My comment before was because I had not heard of this theory in my "basic" anthropology courses, and I have had quite a few, and you said that it was basic anthropology.

juliaoceania -> RE: Christian zealots! (9/12/2006 3:50:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster It's used in anthropology, julia. I'm still hunting for the first use of the terminology (just for my own interest); I don't think it was Morgan's book, but I'm not finding anything older than that, either. Like you, I had no idea of what he was talking about until he explained that he meant "acentric" as opposed to "centripetal." quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania My comment before was because I had not heard of this theory in my "basic" anthropology courses, and I have had quite a few, and you said that it was basic anthropology. I looked up the book based on his terms, I could only find an echeat essay that referenced it. I have very little knowledge or primatology, but the term was not used in the manner that he used it in any of the anthropology theories that I have read, my point is it is not basic to the understanding of anthropology in the terms he used it. In fact it is rather obscure.

Amaros -> RE: Christian zealots! (9/13/2006 8:10:30 AM)
Probobly more primatology at that - and you're right, it is apparently obscure, linguistic studies have overshadowed behavioral studies I believe, I retract "basic anthropology" - although it ought to be.

NastyDaddy -> RE: Bush administration collars maker fetish films (9/14/2006 1:01:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Actually, Nasty, I don't think we disagree in the basics at all. There are a few assumptions I made early in the thread that I didn't mention above that have an impact. These were: 1. "Faith" as in a propensity for a type of belief system that can be called "religion" is something that is inherent in the genetic, evolutionary structure of the human animal. There is some recent research that supports this theory. I personally believe people are a product of their conditioning process rather than being born preset in their beliefs or faiths. Actually it would be interesting to be born among a society that did not push a faith on their young... they simply lived in peace among themselves, didn't brainwash at all. This type of society also have genes and are human animals. In the examples I gave, I intended to include Native American Indians in addition to Easter Island inhabitants and African Tribes. When the Easter Island inhabitants encountered modern day Americans in WWII, they discovered all kinds of religious (broad FH definition) insight from a regimented god-like race that flew in the skies. After we left the islands we used as shipping and Axis power navy vessel surveillance posts, the islanders fashioned statues in the shapes of airplanes and worshipped them... wanting more chocolate and other treats/miracles they had been blessed with as their reward for believing. This behavior was not born into them. I would assert that a baby born into a religion free environment and raised without it would not genetically need a religion... however, we have seen that a similar baby can be conditioned to need one quite easily, have we not? Sometimes they get it real early to... baptisms and circumcisions are two of the more prevalent rituals to initiate their conditioning processes. quote: 2. I use "religion" in a broader sense than the commonly defined one of a system of beliefs that includes a deity. I am using it in the sense of a coherent system of beliefs that gives a certain world view of how the world works, and gives guidance on how an individual should act. By this definition, there are several systems of belief that I define as "religion" such as human secularism, and Communism that are not normally seen as such. And the newly developed behavior of the Easter Island inhabitants... they invented a religion and fashioned themselves. quote: 3. I define "good" or "success" of a religion not on any of the common moral grounds, but in the evolutionary sense of survival and reproduction. The islanders succeeded in terms of survival, reproduction and they continue to evolve, though many have moved away to lands rich in the miracles they were told of as children. Have they succeeded? It looks like they were adulterated and the jury is still out as they intermingle and merge with other societies. One could say the monster we created died, or is in it's death throws via dilution. quote: 4. I define "moral" for the purposes of discussion as actions that strengthen a society in which a religion operates to improve a society's chances for survival and which gives the greatest freedom to the individual.... I suppose one could be totally moral if one keeps their religions inward... alternatively one could broadcasts them while being covertly immoral under the protection of their highly moral religions. Do as I say and not as I do.... heard that somewhere. If your morality definition is geared to the broad definition of religion, it's just getting harder to understand your perspectives. My entry into the discussion mainly pertained to seperation of church (religion) and state (government). I see that as very healthy element of the US Constitution, while I tend to get the impression you may feel that such a country or system cannot survive without a prevailing religion heavily influencing it.... which is where we don't seem to agree. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: NastyDaddy There are numerous smaller less populated civilizations that prospered and were efficient in their function, often without religious oppression... or no religion at all, until exposed to outsiders who came, destroyed and left, leaving only remnants of their success. Examples would be the Easter Island natives, most African tribes... following their own natural order, unadulterated by "better religions" and the crusaders or missionaries sent to convert the lowly heathens. Well, I agree with this paragraph as well. But based on the assumptions I listed above, these societies or cultures without a "religion" or without an oppressive religion did not survive to the modern era. By my definition, this means that they are unsuccessful, regardless of how laudable they were. Inherent in what I think you are saying about them is that you yourself are making some type of moral judgement as to their "worth", I just don't know your definition. I don't think I cast a moral judgement on the worth of a religion other than speaking negatively of religion influenced societies that destroy other societies based on their religious beliefs and religious morality. Apparently Native American Indians, Easter Island inhabitants and many African Tribes have survived and while clinging to their heritages, they are being parasitically consumed by other religiously influenced societies. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: NastyDaddy The tendencies of various religions to kill or destroy other forms (or absences) of religions make them parasitic elements, and not necessarily a measure of a successful society by any respect. This in turn makes it difficult to accept a simple philosophy that a society will achieve success or will fail based simply on any given religion. Those who wish to decide and attempt to control which is the "accepted" religion are more often the cause of the society failing. A religion (or religious beliefs) can't be parasitic, if they are indeed a natural part of the human genetic makeup. Another way to look at this might be that the real issue is the human desire for power and control. Religious institutions are just one more method used by people to seek and achieve power and control. If there was no such thing as religion, do you really think that mankind wouldn't have a history of genocide, war, torture and murder? In other words, I think many of the people who castigate religion as THE instrument of those things are confused. They are blaming the tool, and not the tool user (Baaaad saw, you cut off Johnnie's finger!) . Is it that religion is restrictive, wasteful of lives and petty - or is it the people who use religion as a cloak for their own benefit? Was it the Christian religion that was the major impetus for the destruction of the Meso-American cultures by the Spanish Conquistadors, or was it the avaricious desire for gold, property and land and the normal human male desire for adventure? Perhaps you were getting weary, or prepping for your trip... it just seems like you were all over the place here. Parasitic religions are definitely real, and they consume other "lessor" or "nonexistent" religions for numerous illogical and immoral reasons.... namely that some asshole (or group of assholes) feel they need to judge the parasite's target society as a snack, or a meal. The point being that they do it, as parasites. Yes, I think the world population would be roughly 25% larger today than it is... had governed societies kept their religions from being their main influences and simply lived in mutual peace. They could provide for security within themselves, survival and morals based on seperation of church and state, while believing in whatever level of spirituality or religion they wished. Religions that advocate genocide of infidels are a perfect example of what's gone wrong down through history. No, the saw did not cut off Johnny's finger... Johnny cut off his finger with the saw, so baaaad Johnnny! Who's to say Johnny will have 9 fingers as long as he formerly had 10 either? If he cuts off another one with your saw, is your saw baaaad too? If I'm not mistaken, the Spanish Conquistadors were heavily influenced by their own religion, and funneling the treasures of parasitically vanquished lessor/weaker societies (including Meso-American cultures) back to Spain to power their chosen religion was what actually happened. I don't think think the Conquistadors were Pirates... hell no, they sought favor from their religiously governed society and got it by killing and stealing. quote: (As a side bar, I think this is exactly the argument used by many who claim that the war in Iraq is really nothing more than an attempt to get control of the oil supplies of the Middle East by the US. They totally discredit Bush's claims of trying to bring democracy to the Middle East. Yet these same people will not apply the same reasoning when it comes to anywhere that "religion" is claimed to be the "cause" of death, invasion or political repression. They seem to want their cake, and eat it too. I don't think you can have it both ways.) Perhaps your side bar could be addressed in another thread? I don't see any difficulty in seeing how Bush, the US or any non-officially muslim country could envision a threat from a religious based country where their religion calls for death to non-believers.... including Bush, the US and any non-officially muslim country's citizens. I can see the cake and eat it too aspect of the parasite function.... but the problem is that it's coming from both sides. A more intelligent way would be to compromise in the name of your hard core religion with so fooking many hard limits.... lighten up people, look at the past and learn from it. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: NastyDaddy The true irony being that people are continuously killed or exterminated over religion, which is why I feel religion has no place in the governing process, and should not be constituted as an element of success or failure of any given society. Religious zealotry is often warlord'ish, and typically constitutes the potential ruin of the society it is allowed to operate and manifest itself in as the "accepted" religion... the "right" god for all memebers of the society. This is what distinguishes most modern larger societies from more primitive larger ones. The exclusion of church from state funtions is a key factor in the successes enjoyed by those larger prosperous societies. "Religious zealotry is often warlord'ish". Yup. True. The second highlighted point of yours, I do not disagree with at all (does that surprise you?). I don't think I've ever argued that the church should be part of the state functions. What I've said is, that often it has been, simply because both religion and state are methods of control, and as human institutions, share some common functions and features. Here I think you are including your concept of the genetic based needs thing again.... no, we don't agree here. I feel there is really no place in a governing process for a single or narrowly focused religion influencing the governing process... religion is not law. quote: However, do realize that this point of view that you and I share is something that comes out of the Western tradition. It's something that we in the West have learned over our own long bloody history. It is something that focuses on the second part of my definition of moral i.e. something that gives the maximum freedom to the individual, and this is a very Western point of view. We are biased in favor of this. Just recognize the bias. Now, time for a new concept. Since we agree that Church and State (notice the caps) should not share temporal power - what is the purpose of religion in a State or society? Is there one? Some will say no, that religion is "bad" and should be totally discarded. I think this is an error for two reasons. The first is that since my definition of "religion" is something that is inherent in man, you can't eliminate it. And attempting to suppress it will inevitablity result in failure. And, because the people who wish to eliminate it have a faulty world view, the failure may (probably) will result in just the opposite from what they intend. In other words, by attempting to suppress the innate drive for religion, the suppression may hide or mask it's activity, and put it under pressure, and eventually cause a destructive counter-reaction. (Think a pressure cooker with no relief valve). Just like your first example, where you said that eventually a repressive religious state will eventually suffer a revolution (from within, or from without), so will the "modern secularists" who attempt to suppress the religious expression of the population in which they (the secularist) have control. The second, related point is that "faith", "belief" or "religion" can indeed serve a purpose in a State, and I propose that it should. Not one of control, but one of limiting control, one of guidance and one of being a "brake" on other normal human impulses (especially on the over-extension of the ego). These two points above are summaries, and deserve and (I'm sure) will receive a lot of debate, so I've just summarized them. But, if we are in agreement about the rest, we can proceed with that discussion. FHky (note: I'm going to be away on a business trip for several days, and will not have much time to devote to this thread until next week. If anyone wants to seriously continue the discussion, I'd suggest another thread, as I think the focus of this one has been pretty seriously fractured). Actually I see plenty of reasons for all societies to share morals, and stop fighting over a "right" religion. Your concept of a religion being imperative to a society's success is not consistent. It does not even afford rights of religious freedom to the non-religious... they are baaaad infidels and atheists! I feel that this very point highly emphasizes my argument. The required presence of religion, even when it's allegedly genetically required (cough)... is a losing proposition. There will always be judgemental influences from religions, especially the basic "my kink your kink" deal. If you don't appear as a bird of the feather, then you are shit... and your death is often highly permissable by those of the feather. This is where killing always falls in order... except in the US and other more democratic and moral countries/societies. So thus we disagree here also. It would be great if you could be a whatever, and I could be a whatever, and our neighbors be a whatever... and none of us felt a burning need to do away with the other because of what we wanted to be or were... that would be sweet. I do feel it can be accomplished via humanity and morality... but not via parasitic killing in the name of a religion, that has never worked.

Page: << < prev 9 10 11 12 [13]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125