murphy@hou2a.UUCP (11/11/83)
It appears to me that religion (in particular, the
organized sort) has always served those in power as
a very reliable method of manipulating large populations
(mainly through fear/hatred) towards largely sinister
and destructive ends. Historical examples of this are legion.
Religion seems to offer a conceptual framework (some
would call it a "crutch") to help the bewildered cope
with a vast and incomprehensible universe. Many people
apparently have a genuine need for the emotional and moral
support of religion.
Some of us prefer naked facts.
Wasn't it Voltaire who said "There will be no peace on
earth until the last King strangles on the entrails of the
last priest" ?
Those interested in the anti-religious viewpoint might
like to read "Why I Am Not A Christian" by Bertrand Russell,
and "The True Believer" by Eric Hoffer.
Rich Ganns
hou2a!murphyeich@uiuccsb.UUCP (11/13/83)
#R:hou2a:-17300:uiuccsb:11900009:000:655 uiuccsb!eich Nov 13 03:05:00 1983 Do you consider Lenin and Stalin to have been religious? Mao? These men shed a great deal of blood (of course they did so with 20th-century means). Were they (at least ostensibly -- I doubt Lenin believed what he preached) not `true believers' in Hoffer's sense? (By the way, Hoffer seems to have been a sometime-religionist.) What I am driving at is that if you tar all the leaders of great movements as religious because those movements caused bloodshed through fear and hatred, you are debasing the word `religion' unto meaninglessness. The quote from Voltaire sounds pretty bloody-minded -- perhaps he was in the thrall of some `religion' too?
speaker@umcp-cs.UUCP (11/16/83)
It appears to me that religion (in particular, the
organized sort) has always served those in power as
a very reliable method of manipulating large populations
(mainly through fear/hatred) towards largely sinister
and destructive ends. Historical examples of this are legion.
You speak of religion as if it were some dark and sinister force
manipulating people through some unseen puppet strings. It isn't
religion, but PEOPLE that are at the heart of all the sinister and
destructive doings. Science has been used in exactly the same
manipulative and destructive way.
Consider that in ancient days the only ones who could communicate
the meaning of God's word were the priests and educated class. To
become educated you either had to be wealthy or train in an institution
protected by the powerfull. Talk about bed-fellows.
And maybe people REALLY believed in the dogma that they (and not
God) were creating. Consider their view of were man fit in the
universe. In ancient days people belived that the universe had a
hierarchic structure and that it was correct for there to be kings
and priests to guide the masses, just as there was a god and his
angels to guide mankind. You can't say, "I don't believe in God
because he killed all these people." He didn't.
Religion seems to offer a conceptual framework (some
would call it a "crutch") to help the bewildered cope
with a vast and incomprehensible universe. Many people
apparently have a genuine need for the emotional and moral
support of religion.
More words. This isn't the sole or even primary purpose of the
major religions that I am familiar with although they might be used
to this end. Not everyone that has a belief in something is totally
bewildered by the universe. Some are just ignorent. Turn on the
Sunday morning TV and listen to the drivel (and I don't mean "Meet
the press").
Some of us prefer naked facts.
How noble of us.
--
- Speaker-To-Stuffed-Animals
speaker@umcp-cs
speaker.umcp-cs@CSnet-Relaymurphy@hou2a.UUCP (11/21/83)
The intent of my recent opinion on "religion in general"
was not to upset or arouse indignation, although it seems to
have done this. I wanted to express an opinion, however
hastily conceived, and to generate some thoughtful discussion.
On this last count, I seem to have failed.
I apologize for any poor choices of words implying absolutes
("always", etc.); as for meanings of words used such as "legion",
"religion", etc. please refer to Webster's New Collegiate
Dictionary. I'm not interested in semantic sparring; you may
consider me to be an ignoramus if it makes you feel better.
I agree that religion has not always been used merely as a
convenient vehicle for man's urge to dominate and destroy, but
the fact that is has been (and is) should give reason for pause
to those who champion it.
I find it interesting that my opinion has generated some
apparent emotional heat. Why should what I have said upset
anyone who is secure in their beliefs? As for those who are not
secure in their beliefs, there is something to be said for an
honest, critical, unemotional (as far as possible) approach to
such questions as "why do I believe in thus-and-such?".
Rich Ganns
hou2a!murphyeich@uiuccsb.UUCP (11/29/83)
#R:hou2a:-18000:uiuccsb:11900017:000:1453
uiuccsb!eich Nov 29 03:40:00 1983
/***** uiuccsb:net.religion / hou2a!murphy / 6:31 pm Nov 21, 1983 */
... As for those who are not
secure in their beliefs, there is something to be said for an
honest, critical, unemotional (as far as possible) approach to
such questions as "why do I believe in thus-and-such?".
/* ---------- */
Yes, there is something to be said for such an approach to such
questions. Too bad your original note didn't ask that question
seriously or directly, and didn't evince an honest, critical,
unemotional approach, but rather a self-aggrandizing, intellectually
dishonest (I refer to weasel-words like `always'), uncritical (your
comments could be directed against secular ideologies and philosophies
as easily, and they would still be empty fatuities) approach.
For there to be reasoned debate in net.religion (in net.anything,
really), there has to be a presumption in favor of ecumenicism: that
common ground, however narrow, exists, and that we can find it.
Anything else belongs in net.flame. Why are net.politics and
net.religion (and net.*) intellectual ghettoes where, too often,
frustrated children rant and whine, and pridefully moralize? The a
priori value of minimal tolerance has been debased.
I really doubt that your original note was conceived of as a starting
point in a dialogic search for common ground. And minimal tolerance
should not, I think, tolerate that.
Brendan Eich
uiucdcs!eichmurphy@hou2a.UUCP (11/30/83)
You're right, Brendan. I was just shooting my mouth off.
Rich Ganns
hou2a!murphy