Religious Control

[Chris]

It would be nice if at least the forum's leadership could refrain from making other members the subject of the their posts and focus on the thread topic.

"He who has ears to hear, let him hear..."

The OP stated that religion "often" controls...not that it always does, not that it is always a bad thing when it does, and certainly not that religion does not frequently contain and display very positive aspects - things that are a blessing, both to the individuals who practice it and to the societies in which it is practiced. Any serious (or even casual) student of history is aware of the excesses and even outright horrors for which one religion or another has been responsible, and Christianity is no exception. Acknowledging that plain fact is not a condemnation of religion - at least it does not need to be.

Yet because government, work, business, family, clubs, just about everything in life involves some form of control, good and bad, it makes no sense to single one out. That I think is the point of most comments on the OP.

[Standing Wolf]

Yet because government, work, business, family, clubs, just about everything in life involves some form of control, good and bad, it makes no sense to single one out. That I think is the point of most comments on the OP.

I think you've failed to read and/or understand at least a couple of my posts, Chris. Read, for example, my response to a post by FindersKeepers a short time ago.

You know, of course, Chris, that your continued animosity towards me and virtually anything I write, and your attempts to twist around anything I post in order that you can inveigh against it, just makes you look idiotic...right?

[Chris]

I think you've failed to read and/or understand at least a couple of my posts, Chris. Read, for example, my response to a post by FindersKeepers a short time ago.

You know, of course, Chris, that your continued animosity towards me and virtually anything I write, and your attempts to twist around anything I post in order that you can inveigh against it, just makes you look idiotic...right?

Or you failed to communicate it or both--meaning is negotiated. And as far as that goes you offer no clarification, just mere accusation, no negotiation most call discussion, ending in insult you decry against others. I said nothing about you to conclude animosity; I addressed your post.

[Standing Wolf]

Or you failed to communicate it or both--meaning is negotiated. And as far as that goes you offer no clarification, just mere accusation, no negotiation most call discussion, ending in insult you decry against others. I said nothing about you to conclude animosity; I addressed your post.

In Post #20 your entire response was "Not really". (Clarification? Discussion?) In Post #21 you wrote something about it making no sense to "single out" religion as a means of control...except that it happens to be the topic of the thread. Your response to the discussion really amounted to, "Yeah, but...work, family, clubs..."...as though someone, anyone had claimed that religious groups were the sole utilizers. In other words, you were arguing against a view that no one had offered.

[Chris]

Yet because government, work, business, family, clubs, just about everything in life involves some form of control, good and bad, it makes no sense to single one out. That I think is the point of most comments on the OP.

I think you've failed to read and/or understand at least a couple of my posts, Chris. Read, for example, my response to a post by FindersKeepers a short time ago.

You know, of course, Chris, that your continued animosity towards me and virtually anything I write, and your attempts to twist around anything I post in order that you can inveigh against it, just makes you look idiotic...right?

Or you failed to communicate it or both--meaning is negotiated. And as far as that goes you offer no clarification, just mere accusation, no negotiation most call discussion, ending in insult you decry against others. I said nothing about you to conclude animosity; I addressed your post.

In Post #20 your entire response was "Not really". (Clarification? Discussion?) In Post #21 you wrote something about it making no sense to "single out" religion as a means of control...except that it happens to be the topic of the thread. Your response to the discussion really amounted to, "Yeah, but...work, family, clubs..."...as though someone, anyone had claimed that religious groups were the sole utilizers. In other words, you were arguing against a view that no one had offered.

Switching to #20? Should I have posted "There's not really a big difference between saying, "Members are being hypersensitive and posting off-topic" and saying, 'Yeah, that XYZ is a real tool"'"?

As to #21, you were defending the OPs criticism of religion alone to which I responded all things in life involve control so singling out religion is meaningless.


I'm still waiting for your explanation of where I misunderstood your words and expressed any personal animosity toward you.

[Standing Wolf]

Switching to #20? Should I have posted "There's not really a big difference between saying, "Members are being hypersensitive and posting off-topic" and saying, 'Yeah, that XYZ is a real tool"'"? ...

Yes, speaking or writing in sentences of more than two words does, in fact, suggest that you are actually thinking and not simply grunting.

... As to #21, you were defending the OPs criticism of religion alone to which I responded all things in life involve control so singling out religion is meaningless. ...

To deny or ignore that one aspect of organized religion - in history, and here in the real world - is "control" is nonsensical. I supported the OP because it was an accurate statement of the facts...and I quote:

... While I understand the appeal of religion given life and death, a resource that can give comfort and group security, the trouble is it often seeks to control as well as proselytize. A thoughtful person questions religion but many follow like puppets, and when that religion dictates acceptable behaviors and bans others the problems begin. ...

I agreed with FindersKeepers' post to some extent, but not completely. Please see my Response to her posting. Neither Midcan in the OP, or I in any of my posts, suggested that only in religion is some sort of control practiced. Had we done so, then your point about government, clubs, family, et al, would make sense.

... I'm still waiting for your explanation of where I misunderstood your words and expressed any personal animosity toward you.

Your kneejerk "Not really" in Post 20, mostly, but it crops up everywhere on the forum, day after day. You seem to go out of your way to make yourself appear to be arguing with me or to be pointing out the error in something I actually didn't say. Never mind, Chris - things go more smoothly when I just ignore your posts.

[FindersKeepers]

I agreed with FindersKeepers' post to some extent, but not completely. Please see my Response to her posting.

Yes and I appreciated you pointing out how counterproductive my post was because it veered into the "attack" realm. You were 100% right. I also agree that not everyone wears the same religious cloak--many are devout, compassionate, honest, and truly good people. I have many old-order Mennonite friends that fit that description. Salt of the earth.

I'm not convinced, however, that those people wouldn't be just as good if they weren't religious. I feel as though they see the best side of their religion and their religion, in turn, reinforces their belief.

But, when we look at things like the Doctrine of Discovery, that's where we have to admit that the highest echelons in religion--the ones supposedly nearest to God--may not be holy in the least.

And, it's the same thing when religions justify killing heretics or adherents of other faiths.

We're being asked to turn a blind eye to some horrific things because the Church does some good deeds.

But, that's not how it works in our society. We have limits and once they're breached, the trust can't be regained. Suppose there's a man in a community who tithes every week, who volunteers in the community, who donates to all manner of charities. He's looked up to by all--until he rapes one little girl and kills her. At that point, all the "good works" he may have done are cancelled out by the one bad thing.

That's how I see organized religion. Good works don't cancel out bad works.

My best childhood friend eventually left the Mormon faith but as teens, she was pretty devout and I accompanied her on many church activities--and on trips to Salt Lake where I wandered through the public part of the Tabernacle while she wore her special underwear to other events. I asked her years later why she left the faith and she was very upbeat about it. All she said was, "Well, they marry dead people. And, Mountain Meadows."

We still laugh over that.

[Chris]

Somebody needs to do some research on critical theory, postcolonialism theory, and its Marxist roots.

[Chris]

Yes, speaking or writing in sentences of more than two words does, in fact, suggest that you are actually thinking and not simply grunting.



To deny or ignore that one aspect of organized religion - in history, and here in the real world - is "control" is nonsensical. I supported the OP because it was an accurate statement of the facts...and I quote:


I agreed with FindersKeepers' post to some extent, but not completely. Please see my Response to her posting. Neither Midcan in the OP, or I in any of my posts, suggested that only in religion is some sort of control practiced. Had we done so, then your point about government, clubs, family, et al, would make sense.



Your kneejerk "Not really" in Post 20, mostly, but it crops up everywhere on the forum, day after day. You seem to go out of your way to make yourself appear to be arguing with me or to be pointing out the error in something I actually didn't say. Never mind, Chris - things go more smoothly when I just ignore your posts.

English is a wonderful language for brevity. "Not really" expressed all that needed saying.

No one least of all me denied control as an aspect of religion. What I pointed out and you fail to address still is control is an aspect of all life. Ditto the false narrative of the OP.

I'm still waiting for your explanation of where I misunderstood your words and expressed any personal animosity toward you. You claimed it for post #21 not post #20 to which you keep diverting. It matters little to me whether you respond to me or not. Just don't get all uppity when I respond to you.

[blackjack21]

The structure is in place to protect and hide the abusers.

That's absurd. Hierachy is how humans scale operations. It's not as if hierarchy is exclusive to pederasts.

The desire to control is strong and leads to greater abuses, such as those seen with the Inquisition or the series of papal bulls that created the Doctrine of Discovery.

Or gun control, which uses commercial regulation to violate people's Second Amendment rights; or birth control, which allows people to terminate pregnancies rather than give up an unwanted child for adoption. There are lots of people who are deeply into control, and they are not all religious in the traditional sense. Many devote their lives to political parties and political movements.

And then, of course, there is always the patriarchal aspect of control that keeps women from participating at the same level males participate in the church.

That practice is not exclusive to churches. Women menstruate. Before they do, they tend to get a big boost of estrogen, which among other things, will bind to tryptophan hydroxylase, and thereby attenuating the metabolic path for the creation of seratonin or 5-hydroxytryptophan. This makes lots of women mentally and emotionally unstable for at least several days per month. So throughout the world, women have been kept out of important decision-making roles for fear of what the Greeks called Hysteria.

You know that's not true.

There's nothing in your description of a religious instition that doesn't apply to secular institutions too. In the West, religions no longer launch wars. Nation-states do. It's secular institutions that are most responsible for the mass murder of war.

Do I resent and even abhor the tendency of some religious individuals and groups to force their beliefs on non-believers and overlay their doctrine onto the secular law under which we all must live? Of course I do...but I try to make reason my response.

Until the administrative state arose, secular law was always closely tied to morality.

To deny or ignore that one aspect of organized religion - in history, and here in the real world - is "control" is nonsensical.

Yes, but that's a distinction without much of a difference. Religion, in history, played a significant governmental role, a role it doesn't play today. Government is entirely about control. It's right there in the name itself.

Neither Midcan in the OP, or I in any of my posts, suggested that only in religion is some sort of control practiced.

Perhaps not, but it's kind of implied. Modern government is guilty of virtually everything you'd accuse religion of in medieval times.

At that point, all the "good works" he may have done are cancelled out by the one bad thing.

How so, and in what way? People are held accountable for their evil deeds, but how does it cancel out the good things they have done. If someone builds a house for a poor person, and then rapes and kills a girl, does the house disappear? That seems like a bit of magical thinking to me.

That's how I see organized religion. Good works don't cancel out bad works.

However, you are implying the opposite: that bad works cancel out good works.