From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Thu Apr 21 2005 - 15:10:24 BST
Arlo,
> Platt (previously)
> > 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.
Arlo:
> 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.
Please explain what you mean by "reify themselves." Do you mean those in
power value consolidating and staying in power?
> 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.
The "context" of my statement above is the 20th century. But even in the
darkness of its the Middle Ages, the brutality of the Christian church in
terms of numbers murdered doesn't come close to the genocides perpetrated
by secular-dominated governments in modern times. When it comes to mass
slaughter, Marxist communism takes the prize.
> 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.
I wouldn't lump Jesus and Mohammed with Pol Pot or Hitler in terms of
numbers slaughtered "in the name of." But, xenophobia being a natural
state of man I agree with, stemming from ancient evolutionary struggles.
> 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".
We'll just have to disagree on whether morally-mature religion and morally-
bereft intellectualism were "innocent bystanders" in the wars of the 20th
century.
> 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.
Marx is the father of the communist (intellectual) political system which
has proved itself to be totalitarian wherever it's been tried -- Russia,
China, Cuba, etc. By contrast, the democratic political system,
originating in ancient Greece, was born again by Judeo-Christian advocacy.
I think there's a message in this comparative history.
> 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.
I certainly agree that static religious practices, unlike a market
economy, are hardly conducive to providing fertile ground for Dynamic
Quality to flourish.
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?
> "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?
> 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?)
> > 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.
> > 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).
> 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.
Best,
Platt
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 : Thu Apr 21 2005 - 15:10:39 BST