On 17 Jul 2014, at 10:33, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]
] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 11:20 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Atheist
Salman Rushdie wrote:
> religion is the poison in the blood. Where religion intervenes,
mere innocence is no excuse. Yet we go on skating around this issue,
speaking of religion in the fashionable language of "respect". What
is there to respect in any of this, or in any of the crimes now
being committed almost daily around the world in religion's dreaded
name?
It is the liberal consensus that we should always respect all
religious beliefs regardless of how stupid or cruel it is; for
example tune into just about any international news broadcast and
you will probably see at least one story about religious violence
somewhere in the world, but the media won't call it that, the media
will call it "sectarian violence". As for me I think there is a
point beyond which a euphemism becomes a lie.
John K Clark
I would describe it as a societal paradigm... this unspoken rule that
all should respect religion. It dominates both the political right
as well as the left.
I think it is more the general and positive idea of respecting the
others. But sometimes people forget that this rule is limited to those
who respect you. If you respect those who does not respect you, you
lose dignity and eventually life.
Religion is a useful tool to power structures (when it is not the
power structure itself);
I agree, alas. I would say that it is in the nature of religion to
easily be confused with the 3p structure which might try to represent
it. That is why the basic of the mystics is negative, they often say
only: no it is not this, nor that, neither this nor ...
Neoplatonist theologies reflects this in being "negative theologies".
But that's the fate of anything near a Protagorean virtue. Not just
the Churches, also the Trade Unions, for a different example. The very
goal of the Trade Unions is morally positive, as it defends the
employees on possible employer abuses. But an old Trade Union can
become a machine defending the interest of the Trade Unioners only, up
to the point as being a problem for both the employer and the employees.
The same for money. At first it makes it possible to share the
products of works, and speculate about the futures, but then it can be
used for its own sake, perverting its distribution and speculation role.
Fake or lies based powers quickly speculate only on how long they can
lie.
In no case should we throw the baby with the bath water. All positive
thing which are related to a protagorean virtues are on the risk, when
implemented, to be perverted by its name or social representation.
religion serves the interests of central authority. Emperor
Constantine and the Roman imperial elites of the time have as much
(or more perhaps some argue) than any mythical prophet, to do with
the evolution of a loose set of scattered stories into an organized
imperial state religion united under the crucifix (and conveniently
the emperor as well).
When a religion is institutionalized at the level of the state; not
only politics will get inconsistent and authorianists, but the
religion itself will become a mockery of itself. Also, at such a
level (an Empire), it can take *many* centuries to recover.
You would probably describe me as being liberal, but I certainly do
not ascribe to any dictum that I respect the institution of or
practice of religion. Quite frankly I do not. Especially organized
religion, which is a lot like organized crime IMO, sharing with it
many of the same characteristics and practices.
I agree 100%. This makes me only anticlerical, though. Not against
religion. (Nor religious communities, nor even religious state/
country, as religion can be taught through example. But it cannot be
installed by force, nor even by votes. In fact religion like science
can develop through practice, research, and "exemplary behaviors" (yet
never named as such).
A few examples of some shared characteristics: murdering (or
shunning) those who attempt to leave; murdering (or marginalizing)
the competition (very mob like behavior); demanding protection money
from those under its control - the tithes to the church are they
really that different from protection money to the local gang boss.
I could go on, the ways in which religion and organized crime
operate is quite numerous.
Totally agree. But the culprit is not the religion, nor money, nor the
trade union, etc. the culprit is in the humans, who for special short
term interest pervert the original thing. A bit like in a cancer, the
culprit is not the blood cells which feed the tumor, but the cancerous
cell which "perverts" the sanguine system to feed the tumor.
Religion are very easily taken into hostage by bandits looking for
power, but children are easily taken into hostage by bandits too. That
makes not religion, nor the children, bad per se.
OK?
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
