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

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

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Amaros

deleted because I missed your answer

< Message edited by juliaoceania -- 9/11/2006 11:28:43 PM >

_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to Amaros)

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

As an anthropologist I have never heard of this theory or of "accentric"... interesting

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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....

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.

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?

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.)

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.

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).