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]

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.