|
jack8007 -> RE: The Rise of Religious Conservatism ? (3/9/2011 4:42:58 PM)
|
quote:
don't see why both explanations can't work
I think it depends on what you're talking about. People who get their knickers in a twist about attacks on religion obviously regard religion as a social not personal matter that can be threatened by talk - so as far as that goes I'd suspect that it's not about anything they may believe personally - I doubt they think enough about theology to have faith - it's about people suggesting that perhaps there may be another better way than whatever hocus-pocus they adhere to. And that of course suggests that maybe they've been sucking the wrong dicks.
I think the vast majority of people "believe" in a religion as a social affiliation. That is, they claim to believe in all the magic shit because it identifies them with others - and when somebody asks a question, it gives them an excuse to hyperventilate. Most of that stuff doesn't affect their life, and of course they do not - and especially the leaders - do not adhere to any of their rules that really involves any serious economic commitment. The Pope could liquidate half his holdings, and save the kids of the Congo. Of course he will point out that's useless, since it just makes more kids, and so all his decorations are as significant as his flatulence. He's just another powerful hypocrite, and of course I would be the 1st to point out the fundamental irrationality of life.
Religion is pure bullshit, except as far as it's social functions go. What I find completely amazing is that an asshole like Elron Hubbard can just (consciously) invent a religion from his recycled science fiction rejects, complete with phony machines and crazy ass Thetans and Xenu, and in a matter of a few years, he has thousands of people worldwide doing his bidding, in every detail and making him fucking millions of $$$$.
Now take a look at the history of the Mormons, and given the differences of technology and social context, tell me how different that is? And if you're conscious of history, you realize that there are a lot of little churches and cults that come and go all the time, and you have to ask, is this the usual pattern of religious formation? Some schizophrenic asshole claims to talk to God so that he can buttfuck his neighbors, and then passes it down to others who recognize the advantage of the business model?
There is a scene in The Godfather where some priest makes the comment to Michael that none of them believe the doctrine they sell, and I think that is pretty true - no seriously conscious or thoughtful person could be more than 6 years old, and compare what is sold in a religion to what they see with their eyes, and believe a word of it. The key thing here is to recognize that people love bullshit, and they love to be led around by the nose. Clergy can never be serious without alluding to the will of a Hairy Thunderer.
None of which suggests I doubt that many people are committed to these rituals and bullshit fantasies, only that the commitment is purely a social identification. That way, you get to pick fights with people who might say the obvious, that it's laughable.
Now if religions were along the line of Hello Kitty harmless shit, that would be one thing. But generally they are rationalizations for all sorts of cruelty and thievery, to say nothing of wastes of perfectly good virgins that wind up in volcanoes, and perfectly serviceable women whom some ayatollah wants to stone just to make his point - the point being that he's a flaming asshole who needs a dose of his own medicine, in slow motion.
|
|
|
|
