(no subject)
this is from an interesting discussion with jon. it's easier having these kinds of discussion with jon through typing because it's easier to gather my thoughts, but I guess Plato or somebody would call it a cop out. I think some of those Greek philosphers were against the written word because they thought true virtue was in the ability to debate on the spot, while speaking.
well anyway, you can read the conversation here.
http://www.livejournal.com/community/abstractthought/529758.html?thread=8937822#t8937822
---------------------------------------------------
I don't think a concern for religious institutions has a strong or meaningful place in the large scheme of power playing between emperors and leaders. They don't need any particular religion to control the views of the masses - all they need is a dogma. A religion only becomes that dogma when someone powerful leader thinks he can use it to rally his forces together.
What people really want is a structure that's somewhat reliable, where they know where they stand. They also want some sense of empowerment within their society - they need to believe there's a special reason that there is society is a good society. The caste system was a clear example of this, and theologians argued that it was necessary to keep society together and functioning. It became corrupt when the brahmins decided they were better than the kshatriyas and they in turn thought they were better than the sujas. The sujas said "well at least we're better than the vyasas" and so forth. Also, if you're born to a certain caste, you're supposed to stick with it regardless of what you want. That rule was not even stated in any Hindu texts - it just sorta happened and no one could stop it - even when other theologians found explicit phrases that seemed to indicate that it shouldn't be by birth, but by choice. This system of organization was clearly corrupted. Why do so many belief systems get corrupted? Money, greed, and power - all things that can happen at a very small level, even tribal, but don't seem quite as extensive unless applied to millions of people. Even scientists have political wars over certain conclusions. I admit science is a little easier to cut through bullshit because it can rely on documented research, but sometimes, research doesn't get out there. What about all these drugs that are suddenly being pulled off the market because only now certain information is being released. I liken that to a peaceful, equal message of Christian love that just doesn't seem to make the headlines because people are too preoccupied with power in their own communities. The people in power don't want those messages out there because they gain more when the public ascribes to only their own dogma. Do you think a televangelist or fundamentalist really cares about abortion or homosexuals? A lot of those same televangelists have been caught with kiddie porn and having homosexual relationships. They usually just hate themselves and want to deal with it by becoming big stars on whatever stage they can get themselves on.
You're insinuating that the Christian right's mentality is what actually prompts the US to do the things that it does, when I think it's pretty clear that the US's interests lie in money and power so that they can continue propping up the structure which the American people have become accustomed to. It is ignorant to villify religion when the fundamentalists' use the function of us vs. them to gain credibility and power and demonstrate it using whatever belief system works at the time. It's also not fair to say the Christian agenda is the most dangerous agenda in the world. I could just as easily state that the Islamic agenda is more dangerous because it represents far more people than there are in America's Christian right, and the power they have has extended to violence in Africa and the Middle East and Asia, just as well as any "Christian" agenda in those regions. But I pose this question - why would the Christian right be opposed to Christian communities in south and latin america, who have also been hurt by Bush and his father's power structure? By making Christianity responsible for Bush's tactics, you resort to his level of making Islam responsible for terrorism.
If Bush uses the word God in every speech, he does it because he knows he can and it will help him. If the televangelists say homosexuality is wrong, they know they'll be respected because the people want someone to say what is good and what is bad, which is a part of assembling a structure that people feel they can rely on. If the televangelists get Bush to outlaw homosexuality, it only confirms their power grip and gains them more credibility within their community. The real question is, why do these people find security in the people who are viewed as espousing doctrines of hate and fear?
well anyway, you can read the conversation here.
http://www.livejournal.com/community/abstractthought/529758.html?thread=8937822#t8937822
---------------------------------------------------
I don't think a concern for religious institutions has a strong or meaningful place in the large scheme of power playing between emperors and leaders. They don't need any particular religion to control the views of the masses - all they need is a dogma. A religion only becomes that dogma when someone powerful leader thinks he can use it to rally his forces together.
What people really want is a structure that's somewhat reliable, where they know where they stand. They also want some sense of empowerment within their society - they need to believe there's a special reason that there is society is a good society. The caste system was a clear example of this, and theologians argued that it was necessary to keep society together and functioning. It became corrupt when the brahmins decided they were better than the kshatriyas and they in turn thought they were better than the sujas. The sujas said "well at least we're better than the vyasas" and so forth. Also, if you're born to a certain caste, you're supposed to stick with it regardless of what you want. That rule was not even stated in any Hindu texts - it just sorta happened and no one could stop it - even when other theologians found explicit phrases that seemed to indicate that it shouldn't be by birth, but by choice. This system of organization was clearly corrupted. Why do so many belief systems get corrupted? Money, greed, and power - all things that can happen at a very small level, even tribal, but don't seem quite as extensive unless applied to millions of people. Even scientists have political wars over certain conclusions. I admit science is a little easier to cut through bullshit because it can rely on documented research, but sometimes, research doesn't get out there. What about all these drugs that are suddenly being pulled off the market because only now certain information is being released. I liken that to a peaceful, equal message of Christian love that just doesn't seem to make the headlines because people are too preoccupied with power in their own communities. The people in power don't want those messages out there because they gain more when the public ascribes to only their own dogma. Do you think a televangelist or fundamentalist really cares about abortion or homosexuals? A lot of those same televangelists have been caught with kiddie porn and having homosexual relationships. They usually just hate themselves and want to deal with it by becoming big stars on whatever stage they can get themselves on.
You're insinuating that the Christian right's mentality is what actually prompts the US to do the things that it does, when I think it's pretty clear that the US's interests lie in money and power so that they can continue propping up the structure which the American people have become accustomed to. It is ignorant to villify religion when the fundamentalists' use the function of us vs. them to gain credibility and power and demonstrate it using whatever belief system works at the time. It's also not fair to say the Christian agenda is the most dangerous agenda in the world. I could just as easily state that the Islamic agenda is more dangerous because it represents far more people than there are in America's Christian right, and the power they have has extended to violence in Africa and the Middle East and Asia, just as well as any "Christian" agenda in those regions. But I pose this question - why would the Christian right be opposed to Christian communities in south and latin america, who have also been hurt by Bush and his father's power structure? By making Christianity responsible for Bush's tactics, you resort to his level of making Islam responsible for terrorism.
If Bush uses the word God in every speech, he does it because he knows he can and it will help him. If the televangelists say homosexuality is wrong, they know they'll be respected because the people want someone to say what is good and what is bad, which is a part of assembling a structure that people feel they can rely on. If the televangelists get Bush to outlaw homosexuality, it only confirms their power grip and gains them more credibility within their community. The real question is, why do these people find security in the people who are viewed as espousing doctrines of hate and fear?