View Single Post
Old 04-12-2006, 06:20 PM   #129
Lie
Socialphobic
 
Lie's Avatar
 
Location: Goin' out West where they'll appreciate me
Posts: 10,001
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sleeper
ok, i thought you were maybe referring to that and i fully agree. that principle stands up to any test i think


i dont know what you mean about escaping personal problems exactly. thats a fairly broad way to put it and, insofar as its broad enough to capture what i think on that, i agree. theres a more specific answer to that question though, i think. i can say that, overall, almost by definition, it takes a pretty deficient mind to identify fully with near anything. its really not right. you could talk all day about what root it stems from, but i usually think of it as coming from this fundamental phobia of accepting uncertainty. its not even really a demand for certainty or absolutes, but more a refusal to accept uncertainty in those realms i think. such absolutes dont really exist, so its easy to just find or create them i think. its why the most pacific, stable times or places produce (for lack of a better word) humanism, and why, you know, "there are no atheists in fox holes" or whatever. this is a pretty tired, prosaic conclusion, i know, but its certainly not less true because of that

in fact, ive been thinking more and more of (another tired conclusion) politics as religion. this couldnt be more true. for instance, in terms of the psychology behind it, communism was very, very much a religion back in the early 20th century, way more than it was even a political ideology for a lot of people. i cant stress this enough. i dont really even take seriously it as an political theory anymore, its a religion through and through. and i hate to be crude and take a shot at your buddy now, but jczeroman is truly the embodiment of this pathology. the whole christian thing was just embarrassingly fitting

this is a bit off topic but i just found it really interesting and its kind of within the theme that is developing now. i read this op-ed that discussed this idea that atheists, being people who dont believe in a god, are more prone to violence or just any amoral act. the piece was basically arguing the opposite, that its atheists who dont have the luxury of excuses and have to answer to themselves, while religion allows oeople to break that thin but incredibly, incredibly important barrier, alleviating people of responsibility for their acts. this is so true, i think, and its a great topic that gets soiled too much with stupid bickering ("crusades and inquisitions!" says one. "oh yeah?! stalin and mao!" says the other). its on that psychological level that this is most interesting. i heard this story recently that some photojournalist who made his way into the insurgency in iraq after months of building trust recounted: he said at one point the americans were baring down on them and one of the insurgents knew he would have to fight (and invariably die) and he started talking to the journalist about his wife and kid and started crying, only to them say "no, no, these tears are the devils way of controlling me." then he went out and got killed.
ok identifying with some political ideology maybe isnt that sick but, hey, its pretty close
Well, I think you brought up a good point. As far as I'm concerned religion is fine, and so is political ideology, but it's the combination of the two that's dangerous: when politics become a religion or religion becomes political. And this can't be battled by something as simple as separation of church and state, because as you pointed out when you mentioned communism, things besides religion can still take on a religious nature. Religion is only the opiate of the masses if it HAS been politicized.

One of the downsides to modern democracy is that almost anything can be made a political or religious subject, even if that thing naturally has nothing to do with either. It's a very rich environment for group identification to sell. In the midst of consumerist culture, identity has a whole new value. It's not just about who you are, it's about what groups can appeal to you the most and therefore win you over to their side.

As far as personal beliefs go, I think it's easy to presume what a person's own religion OR lack thereof really means, but the truth is that you're not going to get a clear picture of that unless you talk to them in depth and they are honest with you. I don't see the point in criticizing people beyond what they bring to the table. If a person's religion drives them to commit harmful acts against other people, then obviously their association with that particular facet of their life is a problem. Or if someone rattles on about certain delusional things that they attribute to their religion, then it's obviously a cover for some deeper problem, the same as it would be if they had a drug or alcohol problem. By the same token, if a person's belief that there is no god and therefore no consequences drives them to the same behavior, well, we've still got a problem, and theological identification is the least of it.

 
Lie is offline