--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I can see no obvious correlation between civilizations that collapse > >> and > >> civilizations that are highly religious. One could just as easily > >> ask "Was their Polynesianness integral to their collapse?" (You may > >> be > >> offended, but is it any more offensive than asking if religion was > >> integral to their collapse?) > >> > >> Another, much more logical question, would be: "was memorial building > >> integral to their collapse?" In this case, one might connect > >> America's penchant for Memorial building to the Easter Islanders' > >> proclivity for the same. > > > > I can only suppose that their religiosity was a factor contributing to > > their use of such a large fraction of their resources for the > > construction of moai. > > <snip> > > Good post, Rich, thanks for the info. I'd like to point out, though, that > I cited not just religion but religious fanatasizm in my original post.
I hesitate to write the following, as while I have been thinking about this post for some time, the recent thread on "religion" makes this post somewhat dangerous. So I'll just say up front that I am not going to get involved in an atheism vs. religion discussion.... I'm curious as to why you make a decision between their "religiosity" and their "religious fanatacism." Isn't the use of the word "fanatacism" simply a way of trying to distinguish "their religion" from "our religion." For example, is there really any difference between the building of the moai and the building of Christian Cathedrals - undertakings which often took generations? Was the building of Christian Cathedrals an example of Christian "fanatcism"? JDG _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
