Before I have my appendix remove, here is an appendix

[steveisgood]

Upon criticism from my last entry via email, in person, and in blog-posting, I feel I should clarify/revise/refuse to clarify or revise.

The Magic Bullet theory.  I confess (a bit embarassingly) that I know comparativley little on this subject, and in all honesty, care even less.  The Kennedy assasination does not resonate with me, or my generation

Comments

[captain79]

"To me, (and history agrees with me), ALL religions are violent, intolerant, obnoxious, sublimemly arrogant, aggressive and exclusionary."

Things that are intolerant, obnoxious, sublimely arrogant, aggressive and exlusionary bother me, too. People included. Individuals can certainly be that way. And still, I try to give people some credit because most everyone is worthy of praise.

Some organizations, such as organized religions, represent a positive change since times before their existence - culturally and intellectually - that lead to a betterment in the quality of life. (Could the problem be more to do with humanity than religions?) Religions, as a phenomena, even lead to other achievements. After all, society is what it is through our accumulated past of achievements and developments. In fact, it is what it is even through our recognition of failures. With time comes change, of course, and one can question the relevance of a concept or institution with time, but blanket statements about whether something "in the here and now" are positive or negative are easy to attack and, quite understandably, more difficult to defend.

What it comes down to might be that sometimes you just gotta say what you want to say and let people accept it or protest. We don't always have to agree and some statements are made not to provoke questions (and don't get me wrong, I love a good argument!), but to be just that: provocative statements. Knowing the difference can be tough.

And here I don't know what is happening...Certainly, once the rebuttles begin camps form. Things get taken to a new height.

But, without doubt, people who are violent, intolerant, obnoxious, sublimemly arrogant, aggressive and exclusionary bother me as much as anything. Some of these traits are more prevalent than others in people. If they are not kept in balance they can become pervasive and ruin a good thing.

(Curious to know exactly what you were responding to, by the way!)

[steveisgood]

I am in complete agreement that many organized religions, and overtly religious people have been vehicles for very positve, progressive change (such as the priests, nuns and ministers protesting the vietnam war, or the rabbis protesting the occupation of the Gaza strip) that makes even the most ardent academic nod in respect. But the question I pose is whether or not these people's respective religion was a neccessary prerequisite to their actions?

Is a person good because of Jesus? or do these people simply know better, and were acting through their conscience (and agency)? Conversally, I think it rather odd when people say that religion forms an underlying moral foundation, whithout which our society would devolve into chaos (as if they, personally, were saying "were it not for Jesus Christ I would be a murdering rapist")

I agrue that their religion provided merely agency for positive change, not directive. If anything, church doctrine has resisted positve change at any oppertunity, and it was only though the courageous church individuals who risked excommunication and (in some cases) even execution in order to inject some sense of rationality to church doctrine (the list I could provide is as endless as no doubt your list would be, so I won't bother).

[captain79]

The institution alone can never take all the credit for a person's positive or negative influence, but the organization also cultures the individual. It can be argued that without any socialization people would be VERY different, even negatively so. Simply, one cannot know "as much" without being informed by a greater body of knowledge (e.g. institution). Life is long, but not long enough to know all you need to know if you are going to be a profound leader for the world. It isn't always a guarantee that an institution is necessary, of course, as some people are naturally exempliary, but most people (even very good people!) have been socialized by an institution. But institutions aren't intended for those exempliary people first. Institutions strive to normalize or "correct" something and usually it is human activity. Even then, it is usually basic human activity.

Still, the degree to which that influence occurs (the organization over the individual versus the individual over the organization) varies according to different factors, not the least of which is the strength of the organization and individual relative to each other, and the environment in which they exist. For example, positive change is easier to achieve when society is readily accepts that change. Society will always be stronger than its institutions and individuals, even the most influential ones. When society is ready for change and the individual makes a good case for it, society will accept the leadership of the individual and shirk the institution that resists change. When individuals or chaos threatens society, society will place its faith in an institution.

Individual morality will likely always be stronger than that of an institution. Few people (except zealots) would argue against that, but that is usually the case only when the individual has been well socialized and, perhaps, cultivated to see themself as an agent for change.

So, is organized religion evil? According to the attributes you give the concept, you'd have to say, yes. But those attributes are applied to a structure that you've only vaguely described and have done little to express a knowledge of, let alone an historical context for. What the future holds for organized religion, I don't know. But organized religon, and Christianity, are examples of institutions that grew not merely out of their ability to influence and control people, but that filled some kind of void in society. People do trust in institutions because they sense they have a weakness. Institutions might abuse that power as they struggle with challenges (especially non-modern institutions) but what people seem to have taken from the experience of our contemporary society is that they exist in absolute isolation from society. They do not seem to realize that the are even more affected and controlled by those around them. In short, I think people - for whatever reason - fail to see how they've been cultivated (positively or negatively) by the people, institutions and social environment around them.

That's a ramble, but I tried to respond to your points and to reiterate some of mine...

But, like I said before, I was more interested knowing what provoked this entry. It was a matter of curiosity.