Horse to JC:
No it's not - religion is a social pattern, not the Social level. Don't be
silly!
Arlo to Horse:
Of course its a very sophomoric idea. And here's the context behind it. Bo (who
apparently still monitors MD) sent me an email that read, in part, "About
"religion" as the social definition is something John has from me, but he
omitted my reservations and qualifications." So now you know where this is
originating. Whatever other deductions you make from this are up to you.
dmb says:
Yes, a very sophomoric idea and a conspicuously self-serving idea too. It's not
just a gross distortion to equate religion with the social level, it's not even
true that all religion is social. The MOQ is a religion is some sense and yet
it is intellectual. The MOQ does not oppose religion per se but rather opposes
the assertion of social level values (from social level religions) over
intellectual values. And of course this is a real-world problem, as in the case
where creationism is taught in science classes along side of instead of the
theory of evolution or the cases where our rights are subverted or distorted by
traditional forms of bigotry and oppression. I mean, traditional religions are
full of super creepy nonsense about how to treat slaves, how to beat your
children, and how to destroy those other guys who don't worship the right God.
Traditional religion is morally outrageous, cruel, hateful and childish. John
wants us to think that this stomach-turning creepiness
is normal, natural and good. I find it impossible to respect such views,
especially as we sit here in the wake of the latest Islamic beheading and the
lethal bigotry of our police forces. This kind of ignorance has to be
eradicated or we are totally fucked.
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html
