From: Arlo J. Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Wed Apr 20 2005 - 02:21:09 BST
Platt,
> Note that a couple of "murderous reactionaries" are omitted, like Mao, Pol
Pot, and Saddam Hussein. Also note that Pat Robertson, who is hardly
> responsible for the murders of millions, is lumped in as morally
> equivalent to the mass killers. Another questionable assertion was that
> all those characters were anti-intellectual. But, several of the worst in
> terms of spilling human blood were intellectually-driven Marxists.
Actually, the problem in all cases (from religious nationalism to the dictators
you mention) is likely not even truly "intellectual", but rather evidence of
the pervasive need for (static) power structures to reify themselves. Now that
the Christian "church" is fairly establish and unthreatened you don't see the
brutal displays of power that were evidenced during most of the past two
centuries. But this is not because the "church has matured", it is because it
is unthreatened and that much of its power has been transferred to secular
government, which then becomes the prime mover towards power reification.
Add to this power structure the (seemingly) xenophobic tendencies of humans, and
one can see the simple formula that underlies the historical murder of
millions, whether "in the name of" Pol Pot or Hitler or Jesus or Mohammed.
In short, it is not about whether "religion" or "intellectualism" has caused
more brutality. Both are, for the most part, innocent bystanders in a
historical quest for power; power in the papacy, power in the Kremlin, power in
the Monarchy, etc., and an arguable xenophobic tendency inherent in people;
fear of blacks, fear of turks, fear of liberals, fear of conservatives, fear of
muslims, fear of christians... fear of "the other".
I do think it is not right to lump Pat Robertson in with Hitler. That's an
emotive move that really has no justification. But its also wrong to equate
Marx with the mass murders of Stalin-- just like itd be wrong to blame the
death of the million killed in the Crusades on Jesus. In both cases, it was
power structures manipulating xenophobia to consolidate their power.
But what people like Roberston DO, is to end religion at suporting static social
power. Thus, religion becomes no more than support of the instituional church,
and true religious, dynamic experience is denied to millions so that the
consolidation of his power empire is maintained.
> Finally, what's actually at "the heart of it all" was the defeat of these
secular monsters by the Judeo-Christian West, although remnants of
> Communism still survive in the East.
"Secular monsters"? You're using the same emotive pairing technique here, Platt.
Lest one consider historical figures such as Clement V to be "religious
monsters". It was not a defeat of "secularism" by "Judeo-Christianity". Our
power structure (fueled nearly exclusively by wealth) simply bankrupted theirs.
"Communism" still survives because many people reject the ideolization of
capital and wealth, and consider the "benefits" to not outweigh the costs (like
the Amish, as another example). And, because these dialogues always get reduced
to "sides", one becomes an oppositionist simply by disagreeing with normative
capitalist power structures. That is, one becomes a "communist" by rejecting
the pursuit of wealth... something feared by capitalists in this country, and
so great effort is made to villify any critical discourse.
This is not to say that "they are right and we are wrong", any more than it is
to say "we are right and they are wrong". Only to point out that many do not
accept that money is God (as it is in this country).
> Praising the intellectual level as superior to the social level is all
> well and good so long as one keeps in mind that many intellectuals are
> Christians, and that SOM intellectualism "has no provision for morals," a
major theme of the MOQ and the prime cause, according to Pirsig, of social
degeneration in America.
Not a problem, you're right. But let's also keep in mind that most of these
"intellectuals" tend to reject religious nationalism (that is they see "God" as
experienced as Jesus, Mohammed, White Buffalo Calf Woman, and in a myriad of
culturally "revealed" ways). The "intellectual" that still clings to static
nationalism (God only revealed Himself to a select tribe in the Middle East, or
my Prophet is the Only True Prophet) maybe "intellectual" in other academic
areas, but they are trapped in social static power structures with regard to
religious experience.
> Those like DMB who exhibit a frightening intolerance of religious belief
> bordering on outright bigotry might be more credible if they acknowledged the
good that Christianity has contributed to the evoluntionary story.
Well, I suppose if you are on the side of Christianity, that would make sense.
If you are part of any religion Christianity has collided with (in the Middle
East, in North and South America...) you'd likely have a different view. Ask
the North American Indian tribe about the joys of Christianity. But again, it
is not about "Christianity", it is about the actions of the power structure to
gain and maintain power. The church has been just as "brutal" in this regard as
any "secualar" power structure you can name.
But I find such statements "intolerance of religious belief" to be "outright
hillarity". Religious nationalism is by definition "intolerant of any other
belief", and has fueled generations upon generations of intolerance. Now that
some people are standing up and being critical of religious nationalism, I see
no greater irony possible than religion complaining about "intolerance".
Maybe its just karmic retribution.
Arlo
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Apr 20 2005 - 02:24:46 BST