From: Arlo Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Thu Apr 21 2005 - 18:09:45 BST
Platt,
Part II of my response.
> Platt (previously)
>
>>>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.
>>
>>
>
>Don't we have to ask the question why they went bankrupt?
>
>
Sure we can. Totalitarian power structures are not nearly as adapt at
generating wealth as capitalistic ones. Who could say otherwise? If I
didn't make that sentiment clear, I apologize. Our economy bankrupted
Russian. It was not a philosophic battle between "Judeo-Christianity"
and "secularism". It was a battle of capitalist economies versus
totalitarian economies. "Religion" had nothing to do with it. Indeed,
our entire "capitalistic structure" is secular.
Our do you mean to suggest that "capitalism" is "Judeo-Christian"?
>
>
>>"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.
>>
>>
>
>Not sure what you'e driving at here. Is the religious-based Amish
>lifestyle your idea of what we should be striving to attain on a wider
>basis? Are there parts of the Communist Manifesto that you think the U.S.
>ought to adopt by law? Do you disagree with Pirsig that capitalism is
>better than socialism because a market economy is by nature more Dynamic?
>
>
>
I'm driving at the point that many people in the world reject the
pursuit of wealth as the most important thing to consider in social
structures. The Amish have a social structure that is akin to Marxism
in many ways. Indeed, it could easily be added that Marxism + God =
Amish. It is their "God" that keeps in check the greed and individual
wealth fixation that drives American capitalism. Since the mainstream
American "God" seems to have no problem with greed and individual wealth
fixation, our social structure supports capitalism quite nicely.
However, if my belief that "your fixation to accumulate individual
wealth" should not outweigh providing health care or food to those in
need, or if my belief that "your greed" should not outweigh treating
workers with decency and concern makes me a "communist" in your eyes, it
is a label I can live with, however historically inaccurate.
My main point is that capitalism fears the idea that greed and
individual wealth fixations are somehow less important than anything
else, and so it villifies and uses deceptive rhetoric against the
opposition, through misuing labels to spreading xenophobic fear.
To the rest, we've been down that road before.
>>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).
>>
>>
>
>Money is the means to express values. You and I may not agree with some of
>the values money expresses, like the earnings of rock stars, but neither
>you nor I would want to coerce others into spending their wages on only
>that which we approve of. (Am I assuming your view of coercion
>correctly?)
>
>
>
No, of course not. But my point is that money is not the only means to
express value. So is compassion. So is concern. So is respect. So is
supporting adequate health care for all people (and not even just US
citizens). So is a focus on being kind rather than wealthy.
>>>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.
>>
>>
>
>Having trouble following your line of thought in the above.
>
>
>
Hm, I think the use of the word "intellectual" in your original post is
misleading. To say that "many intellectuals are Christians" is to use
"intellectual" to refer to some skill the person has (an Christian who
is an intellectual mathematician). I am saying that to get back to
Pirsig's categories, most "Christians" are stuck in social level
religious patterns, and are not participating with religion on an
"intellectual" (or especially "Dynamic") level.
Religion elevated to the intellectual level (such as your concept of
"intelligent design") breaks down religious nationalism (sentiments such
as "my Prophet is the Only True Prophet", or God has only revealed
Himself to a select tribe in the Middle East). Those who continue to
profess religious nationalism are trapped in static social power
structures. Is that more clear?
>>>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.
>>
>>
>
>Not in modern history (since 1900).
>
>
>
Because, as I said earlier on, (a) the church is fairly dominant and not
threatened, and (b) its power has mostly been transferred to secular
government. The papacy can call for a holy war, but it is secular
militaries that would need to fight it. Even so, to dismiss historically
brutalities committed by any power structure, and focus on the recent,
is a rhetorical move only.
>>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".
>>
>>
>
>Again, you must be thinking about the Middle Ages, and perhaps radical
>Islam which acts like it never left the Middle Ages. Today's Christians
>may not be the most tolerant people in the world, but unlike many
>intellectuals, they are not in the forefront of relativism, diversity and
>tolerance, then turn around and demonize the religious right.
>
>
You have to be kidding? I'm thinking about America up to the present.
Try being gay or black or latino or pagan or fill-in-the-blank in any
small town across America. You'll find out what "intolerant" really
means. Indeed, you (conservatives) routinely blast liberals for being
"too tolerant".
Since what the "intellectuals" demonize is the intolerance of the
religious right, this is more like your "is the statement 'everything is
relative' an absolute" argument....
Is intolerance of intolerance itself intolerance?
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 : Sat Apr 23 2005 - 00:17:18 BST