• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

U.S. religion is increasingly polarized

Joined
Mar 2, 2016
Messages
625
There’s both inspiring and troubling news for holiday worshippers.

Unlike other historically Christian Western nations, the United States is not losing its religion, say sociologists Landon Schnabel of Indiana University Bloomington and Sean Bock of Harvard University. But America is becoming as polarized religiously as it is politically, the researchers report online November 27 in Sociological Science.

Intense forms of religion, such as Christian evangelicalism, have maintained their popularity for nearly 30 years, Schnabel and Bock find after analyzing almost 30 years of U.S. survey data. At the same time, moderate forms of religion, such as mainline Protestantism, have consistently lost followers.

Religious moderates’ exodus from their churches stems partly from a growing link between religion and conservative politics, exemplified by the rise of the religious right in the late 1980s, the researchers suspect. Political liberals and moderates who already felt lukewarm toward the religion of their parents increasingly report identifying with no organized religion, especially if leaders of their childhood churches have taken conservative stances on social issues. Many Americans still report that they believe in God and pray, so they haven’t turned to atheism, the scientists say.

Population trends also favor intense forms of religion, Schnabel holds. Mainline Protestantism’s decline from 35 percent of the U.S. population in 1972 — about 73.5 million people — to 12 percent in 2016 — nearly 39 million people — reflects low fertility rates among these Protestants and limited numbers of new adherents from immigration and conversion. Opposite trends among U.S. evangelicals helped their form of intense Christianity surge from 18 percent of the population in 1972 to a steady level of about 28 percent from 1989 to 2016.

“More moderate forms of organized religion could become increasingly irrelevant in the United States,” Schnabel says.

The new findings play into an academic debate about the fate of religion in modern societies. Some scholars argue that in wealthy nations marked by scientific advances, religion inevitably withers. National surveys in 13 other Western, historically Christian nations show a general weakening of religious beliefs, even among intense believers, since 1991, the researchers find. But Schnabel and Bock are among those who view the United States as an exception where intense religion holds steady and even many of those leaving churches keep their faith.

The researchers examined data from nationally representative surveys on religion and other topics conducted from 1989 to 2016 by the General Social Survey, or GSS, a project of the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago. GSS surveys include approximately 1,500 people annually.

Continued at...

Https://www.sciencenews.org/article/us-religion-increasingly-polarized
 

Typh0n

clever fool
Joined
Feb 13, 2013
Messages
3,497
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
This isn't really news to me. The evangelical types in the US were already very popular when I lived there, it doesn't seem like they've gone away.

Why would it go away? The gospel is good business. Ask Benni Hinn and his ilk, for example. Since the gospel is a business for evangelicals, the Republican party with its mix of capitalism and social conservatism is the perfect platform for that. Ceecee posted an article a while back about how 30-40 years ago evangelicalism had become mixed up with self-improvement and the self-made mentality of capitalism, to the point that Christianity had become a kind of self-development program for many conservative Christians. Which isn't at all what the Christian message was about. It has become by an odd twist of events, associated with American conservatism. And now it looks like it has always been that way. But Christianity is compatible with many (though not all) politcal philosophies, and "conservatism" is a term which refers to relatively little, it's just the way society perceives the past to be. The trick is for elites to give people the impression things have always been this way or that, and many folks won't question it because "that's the way it's always been", without trying to find out the answers for themselves.

Now I'll stop and leave you with a little F242.

 

ceecee

Coolatta® Enjoyer
Joined
Apr 22, 2008
Messages
15,908
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
8w9
This isn't really news to me. The evangelical types in the US were already very popular when I lived there, it doesn't seem like they've gone away.

Why would it go away? The gospel is good business. Ask Benni Hinn and his ilk, for example. Since the gospel is a business for evangelicals, the Republican party with its mix of capitalism and social conservatism is the perfect platform for that. Ceecee posted an article a while back about how 30-40 years ago evangelicalism had become mixed up with self-improvement and the self-made mentality of capitalism, to the point that Christianity had become a kind of self-development program for many conservative Christians. Which isn't at all what the Christian message was about. It has become by an odd twist of events, associated with American conservatism. And now it looks like it has always been that way. But Christianity is compatible with many (though not all) politcal philosophies, and "conservatism" is a term which refers to relatively little, it's just the way society perceives the past to be. The trick is for elites to give people the impression things have always been this way or that, and many folks won't question it because "that's the way it's always been", without trying to find out the answers for themselves.

Now I'll stop and leave you with a little F242.


These promote virtually everything contrary to scriptures. It's also where "prosperity theology" came from. It isn't new but in the 1980's and 1990's it exploded and everyone knows the worst offenders - Oral Roberts, Robert Tilton, Creflo Dollar, Joel Osteen and so on. If you aren't making enough money, you're clearly not close enough to god. These are nothing but organized crime syndicates. They produce and sell nothing and because it's a faith and a church, they operate free of taxes as well.

The prosperity gospel, explained: Why Joel Osteen believes that prayer can make you rich - Vox

Many have taken the next step in bilking an entirely gullible segment of the population and moved into "survival kits from God" such as Jim Bakker (no Tammy Faye anymore). Not that there is anything wrong with being prepared - I've long practiced it. But I've done it, amazingly, without the help of a church, of god or anyone but myself. Which is exactly the point of SELF-sufficiency.

Survival Products | The Jim Bakker Show Store
Emergency Food Buckets | The Jim Bakker Show Store
 

citizen cane

ornery ornithologist
Joined
Apr 30, 2010
Messages
3,854
MBTI Type
BIRD
Enneagram
631
Instinctual Variant
sp
And this is surprising to anyone how?
 

Typh0n

clever fool
Joined
Feb 13, 2013
Messages
3,497
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
These promote virtually everything contrary to scriptures. It's also where "prosperity theology" came from. It isn't new but in the 1980's and 1990's it exploded and everyone knows the worst offenders - Oral Roberts, Robert Tilton, Creflo Dollar, Joel Osteen and so on. If you aren't making enough money, you're clearly not close enough to god. These are nothing but organized crime syndicates. They produce and sell nothing and because it's a faith and a church, they operate free of taxes as well.

The prosperity gospel, explained: Why Joel Osteen believes that prayer can make you rich - Vox

Many have taken the next step in bilking an entirely gullible segment of the population and moved into "survival kits from God" such as Jim Bakker (no Tammy Faye anymore). Not that there is anything wrong with being prepared - I've long practiced it. But I've done it, amazingly, without the help of a church, of god or anyone but myself. Which is exactly the point of SELF-sufficiency.

Survival Products | The Jim Bakker Show Store
Emergency Food Buckets | The Jim Bakker Show Store

Exactly. Why do you need a church or God if you can do it yourself? That's the wholepoint of self-sufficiency. And that's fine.

But it seems a religion like Christianity (which btw I am not a huge fan of, at least not in its organised forms) would at least theoretically be about something bigger than just yourself, like maybe service to humanity. That seems like Jesus's message right there, certainly not making money so you can give it to the church.
 

LucieCat

New member
Joined
Aug 2, 2017
Messages
665
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
I've noticed this since I was in my early teens. Well maybe because I am one of the aforementioned Christians who has distanced herself from religion because of not liking how politicized evangelical Christianity. I suppose it might come as surprising to non-Americans.
 

Ace_

New member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
233
MBTI Type
TNT
I'll never understand why out of all the prosperous nations USA is the most religious.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
These promote virtually everything contrary to scriptures. It's also where "prosperity theology" came from. It isn't new but in the 1980's and 1990's it exploded and everyone knows the worst offenders - Oral Roberts, Robert Tilton, Creflo Dollar, Joel Osteen and so on. If you aren't making enough money, you're clearly not close enough to god. These are nothing but organized crime syndicates. They produce and sell nothing and because it's a faith and a church, they operate free of taxes as well.

The prosperity gospel, explained: Why Joel Osteen believes that prayer can make you rich - Vox

Many have taken the next step in bilking an entirely gullible segment of the population and moved into "survival kits from God" such as Jim Bakker (no Tammy Faye anymore). Not that there is anything wrong with being prepared - I've long practiced it. But I've done it, amazingly, without the help of a church, of god or anyone but myself. Which is exactly the point of SELF-sufficiency.

Survival Products | The Jim Bakker Show Store
Emergency Food Buckets | The Jim Bakker Show Store

:mad::2up:
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
I'll never understand why out of all the prosperous nations USA is the most religious.

Alexis de Tocqueville - Wikipedia

Is it because you believe that religion should not equate to prosperity or development?

If it where then it would be evidence of just how often and easily secular ideology is internalised as fact instead of it being a relatively recent aglomeration of irreligious or anti-religious prejudices.

What is wrong is that religion at its worse is so often just represented as religion per se, which I feel is very unfortunate and a very much a contributing factor to the trending of certain styles of religion rather than others, what the OP's article labels as "moderate" and "immorderate" or "extreme", which I think can be as inaccurate when applied to Christianity as when applied to Islam.

The attack on religion in the west, failure to provide any good alternative in the form of a positive ideology, failure to differentiate between good and bad religion, at the same time as post-communism there has been a ramping of political islam and what I would call the embrace of religion in a sort of instrumental fashion by the far right (which is really just an embrace of sectarianism rather than religion proper), it is all a sign of deterioration.

The thing about it is that I dont believe there's even really the tools in terms of intellect, will, affect regulation/patience and balance, to critically evaluate the whole thing.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
Exactly. Why do you need a church or God if you can do it yourself? That's the wholepoint of self-sufficiency. And that's fine.

But it seems a religion like Christianity (which btw I am not a huge fan of, at least not in its organised forms) would at least theoretically be about something bigger than just yourself, like maybe service to humanity. That seems like Jesus's message right there, certainly not making money so you can give it to the church.

See, this post is a very good illustration of why people can not think about religion, its just considered a social construct, an imaginary idea, so basically you may as well be talking about someone's imaginary friend or a fantasy fandom, such as Star Wars, Star Trek or Lord of The Rings.

Which is not the case. There is an objective cosmic order whether you choose an awareness of it or not, its probably a good thing that for the most part practical reason kicks in and you dont become convinced that gravity is just a social construct and try to test that one out.

The thing about objecting to "organised" religion or "organisation" in terms of religion, its an old one which has been repeated in terms of every ideological innovation or development since, its one of those perennial things which is dismissed too easily, if you'd like to read a liberal, feminist, left wing version of the dilemma you could find a copy of "The Tyranny of Structurelessness" or the lousy response to it "The Tyranny of Tyranny" which is a good representation of its opposite.

You could then consider, if you want, the role of tradition in transmitting social learning or "memory" across generations, how that translates into cultures and institutions, it should be balanced with innovation or fresh insight but it remains a thing and consider whether spontaneity or "chaotic" mediums could achieve a result at all. Then consider the consequences for a society of not possessing those things, maybe just per se or perhaps in competition or contrast with other societies, think 40 First Dates without any nice helpful family or love interest to look after the central character but instead evil, exploitative pimp types.

The alignment matrixes of AD&D between evil/good and lawful/chaotic are pretty good when considering these things, that is a backdrop of high fantasy post-apocalypse, ie order has been defeated, at least lawful good order, and is only ever an emergent or competiting force among others, in terms of culture it could describe a post-modernism or perhaps what gives rise to post-modernism.

Anyway, I've rambled on a bit there.
 

Typh0n

clever fool
Joined
Feb 13, 2013
Messages
3,497
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
See, this post is a very good illustration of why people can not think about religion, its just considered a social construct, an imaginary idea, so basically you may as well be talking about someone's imaginary friend or a fantasy fandom, such as Star Wars, Star Trek or Lord of The Rings.

Which is not the case. There is an objective cosmic order whether you choose an awareness of it or not, its probably a good thing that for the most part practical reason kicks in and you dont become convinced that gravity is just a social construct and try to test that one out.

The thing about objecting to "organised" religion or "organisation" in terms of religion, its an old one which has been repeated in terms of every ideological innovation or development since, its one of those perennial things which is dismissed too easily, if you'd like to read a liberal, feminist, left wing version of the dilemma you could find a copy of "The Tyranny of Structurelessness" or the lousy response to it "The Tyranny of Tyranny" which is a good representation of its opposite.

You could then consider, if you want, the role of tradition in transmitting social learning or "memory" across generations, how that translates into cultures and institutions, it should be balanced with innovation or fresh insight but it remains a thing and consider whether spontaneity or "chaotic" mediums could achieve a result at all. Then consider the consequences for a society of not possessing those things, maybe just per se or perhaps in competition or contrast with other societies, think 40 First Dates without any nice helpful family or love interest to look after the central character but instead evil, exploitative pimp types.

The alignment matrixes of AD&D between evil/good and lawful/chaotic are pretty good when considering these things, that is a backdrop of high fantasy post-apocalypse, ie order has been defeated, at least lawful good order, and is only ever an emergent or competiting force among others, in terms of culture it could describe a post-modernism or perhaps what gives rise to post-modernism.

Anyway, I've rambled on a bit there.

Most religions are social constructs, at least, that's what they've turned into. The internal aspect of religions is lost on alot of people. I'm not denying such an aspect exists, in fact I'm a big believer in it.

Also when I say I don't like organised Christianity, I don't have anything against people's sincere beliefs, but I don't care for the way Christian churches, including the RCC, have attempted to stigmatize religions which they feel they can't control. Why does the RCC celebrate ecumenism with other highly organised religions such as Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, Jainism, Hinduism, etc, but goes as far as to stigmatise "new religious movements". I have a problem with the way organised Christian churches have spread misinformation about religions or organizations they don't agree with, though the RCC isn't alone in this regard. You wouldn't like it either if someone was spreading misinformation about the RCC. I'm not saying you personally are doing this btw, but I know many catholics irl including some in my family, who believe total misinformation about secret societies, about the occult, satanism etc. Again, not all churchgoers do this, but unfortunately it's not uncommon.

For example one of my mother's friends is catholic and she has some conservative catholic relatives in France who tell her stories and she repeats that the freemasons are in league with Trump, Kim Jon Un, and Erdogan, that they sacrifice babies and are in league with Satan. We're talking an adult woman with a an education from a wealthy background. How is it possible someone like this believes such nonsense?

I don't know why the RCC is so adamant about opposing freemasonry for example, not to mention the new age, thelema, wicca and satanism, not that these things should be confused with each other except that conventional religions look down on them and even spread disinformation (often deliberately) on these movements.

So I'm not against organisation, I agree with you that a competely de-structured movement wouldn't work to well, but I'm just clarifying my stance on this.

Though I guess we're getting off topic...
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
Most religions are social constructs, at least, that's what they've turned into. The internal aspect of religions is lost on alot of people. I'm not denying such an aspect exists, in fact I'm a big believer in it.

Also when I say I don't like organised Christianity, I don't have anything against people's sincere beliefs, but I don't care for the way Christian churches, including the RCC, have attempted to stigmatize religions which they feel they can't control. Why does the RCC celebrate ecumenism with other highly organised religions such as Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, Jainism, Hinduism, etc, but goes as far as to stigmatise "new religious movements". I have a problem with the way organised Christian churches have spread misinformation about religions or organizations they don't agree with, though the RCC isn't alone in this regard. You wouldn't like it either if someone was spreading misinformation about the RCC. I'm not saying you personally are doing this btw, but I know many catholics irl including some in my family, who believe total misinformation about secret societies, about the occult, satanism etc. Again, not all churchgoers do this, but unfortunately it's not uncommon.

For example one of my mother's friends is catholic and she has some conservative catholic relatives in France who tell her stories and she repeats that the freemasons are in league with Trump, Kim Jon Un, and Erdogan, that they sacrifice babies and are in league with Satan. We're talking an adult woman with a an education from a wealthy background. How is it possible someone like this believes such nonsense?

I don't know why the RCC is so adamant about opposing freemasonry for example, not to mention the new age, thelema, wicca and satanism, not that these things should be confused with each other except that conventional religions look down on them and even spread disinformation (often deliberately) on these movements.

So I'm not against organisation, I agree with you that a competely de-structured movement wouldn't work to well, but I'm just clarifying my stance on this.

Though I guess we're getting off topic...

I dont believe religion is a social construct, I'm not sure what you mean by internal aspects but anyway.

What you have said about having relatives which believe those conspiracy theories about free masonry and the US presidency, that's much more widespread than the RCC, its certainly not official RCC "policy" or "opinion", the actual reasons for opposing free masonry are pretty reasonable, I've read about that it pertains in the most part to the swearing of oaths, binding obligations and secrecy, most of it is largely opinion which would not be out of keeping with more recent liberal democratic opinions about secret societies and possible corruption.

The opposition of the RCC to occultism shouldnt be surprising and I dont believe they do deal in misinformation on that respect at all, it should not be a surprise that they do not affirm new religious movements or occultism since those same movements and creeds have very little good to say about the RCC, although besides any sort of tit-for-tat reasoning the RCC deals in matters of truth, which is not relative, you could watch the film Silence to see the sorts of persecution RCs have suffered for believing that and opposing other creedos or simply just disbelieving them and quietly practicing their beliefs after their own fashion. Years and years of propaganda would have it that the RCC has always been and is in all contexts a powerful and oppressive force, which couldnt be further from the truth.

Anyway, its possible to have an open and honest difference of opinion, ie do not support a church or its professed beliefs as fact, without attributing it to the church being organised or an older institution, if you know what I mean.
 

Typh0n

clever fool
Joined
Feb 13, 2013
Messages
3,497
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I dont believe religion is a social construct, I'm not sure what you mean by internal aspects but anyway.

What you have said about having relatives which believe those conspiracy theories about free masonry and the US presidency, that's much more widespread than the RCC, its certainly not official RCC "policy" or "opinion", the actual reasons for opposing free masonry are pretty reasonable, I've read about that it pertains in the most part to the swearing of oaths, binding obligations and secrecy, most of it is largely opinion which would not be out of keeping with more recent liberal democratic opinions about secret societies and possible corruption.

The opposition of the RCC to occultism shouldnt be surprising and I dont believe they do deal in misinformation on that respect at all, it should not be a surprise that they do not affirm new religious movements or occultism since those same movements and creeds have very little good to say about the RCC, although besides any sort of tit-for-tat reasoning the RCC deals in matters of truth, which is not relative, you could watch the film Silence to see the sorts of persecution RCs have suffered for believing that and opposing other creedos or simply just disbelieving them and quietly practicing their beliefs after their own fashion. Years and years of propaganda would have it that the RCC has always been and is in all contexts a powerful and oppressive force, which couldnt be further from the truth.

Anyway, its possible to have an open and honest difference of opinion, ie do not support a church or its professed beliefs as fact, without attributing it to the church being organised or an older institution, if you know what I mean.

Sure, I'm not saying that the RCC is officially spreading misinformation, though there is alot of misinformation going on about the occult movements, this happened in the US with the evangelicals too, it was obvious that the "satanic panic" type claims were false from the FBI investigation into the matter, I don't know who exatcly was behind such claims but it certainly was done for commercial reasons, ie selling books and media hype.

I agree the RCC is not an oppressive institution, though in the middle ages for example it was, the truth is that this isn't the case today anymore.

Also, by social aspect of religion I mean more the way religion is a convention for some people, whether it be Christianity or Buddhism, alot of the deeper meaning and rich, varying interpetations of these relgions have been lost in favor of a more...conventional aspect, people believe in dogma mainly because they were told its true, less because of inner meaning, though I am aware there are some people who's inner meaning may coincide with said dogma, but that isn't everyone.

Also, as to the whole secrecy aspect of freemasonry and other secret societies, while I understand many people not liking that type of thing, because it creates a lackof transperancy in these societies, which doesn't mean they're commiting crimes or part of some world conspiracy or anything like that, I don't if you are aware but anti-masonic propaganda goes far beyond this oppositon to secrecy, look up the taxil hoax if you want to get an idea of disinformation that many catholics believed in and that the then pope praised, many still believe elements of the taxil hoax and while I'm not saying the RCC offically promotes this stuff, I am dissapointed at how little they do to set the record straight when it comes to this hoax. What I mean is that the Taxil hoax was meant as a prank on the RCC but it seems like it was a prank they many refused to admit as such because it suits them well to believe freemasonry is evil.

So basically what I'm saying is that I don't have a problem with religion, or the RCC per se, but I do wish more was done to combat misinformation on the part of some of its members...
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
Sure, I'm not saying that the RCC is officially spreading misinformation, though there is alot of misinformation going on about the occult movements, this happened in the US with the evangelicals too, it was obvious that the "satanic panic" type claims were false from the FBI investigation into the matter, I don't know who exatcly was behind such claims but it certainly was done for commercial reasons, ie selling books and media hype.

I agree the RCC is not an oppressive institution, though in the middle ages for example it was, the truth is that this isn't the case today anymore.

Also, by social aspect of religion I mean more the way religion is a convention for some people, whether it be Christianity or Buddhism, alot of the deeper meaning and rich, varying interpetations of these relgions have been lost in favor of a more...conventional aspect, people believe in dogma mainly because they were told its true, less because of inner meaning, though I am aware there are some people who's inner meaning may coincide with said dogma, but that isn't everyone.

Also, as to the whole secrecy aspect of freemasonry and other secret societies, while I understand many people not liking that type of thing, because it creates a lackof transperancy in these societies, which doesn't mean they're commiting crimes or part of some world conspiracy or anything like that, I don't if you are aware but anti-masonic propaganda goes far beyond this oppositon to secrecy, look up the taxil hoax if you want to get an idea of disinformation that many catholics believed in and that the then pope praised, many still believe elements of the taxil hoax and while I'm not saying the RCC offically promotes this stuff, I am dissapointed at how little they do to set the record straight when it comes to this hoax. What I mean is that the Taxil hoax was meant as a prank on the RCC but it seems like it was a prank they many refused to admit as such because it suits them well to believe freemasonry is evil.

So basically what I'm saying is that I don't have a problem with religion, or the RCC per se, but I do wish more was done to combat misinformation on the part of some of its members...

I dont think they are any more or less prone to misinformation than any other faith community or even those with ostensibly no faith, I hope it doesnt cause a disagreement but I've never heard of this reference you mention to a hoax involving free masonry, which would suggest to me that its pretty obscure, so I'm not sure that I'd know why an institution like the RCC would decide to prioritise anything about it.

There may be people who engage in or believe in dogmatics, I knew one person who did in my whole 38 years of life and he was kind of an exception sort of being, gradually gravitated towards fascism, and I strongly suspect that he had some psychological issues which had gone undiagnosed and professed the belief in dogmatics that he did as a strong wish to avoid any emotional conflict or mental trouble from a consequence of doubts, second thoughts etc. I like to think they are less, less commonplace with the passage of time.

In terms of its history or legacies the RCC has apologised for the factual crimes its played a part in, although I would suggest there is as much good as there is bad, the salem witch trials and other witch hunting atrocities which most people remember were never part of the RCC's history but instead perpetrated by neutral or chaotic (to borrow the AD&D alignments again) christian congregations.

The heresy hunting and inquisitorial atrocities were fewer than supposed and often many of them were committed by local feudal authorities before they even arrived on the scene or in their stead even, now I know there's a complex medieval politics involved in that, some would claim that those local, regional and national atrocities which did occur were committed in view of trying to prevent greater ones perpetuated by the inquisition which had a powerful, terrifying reputation but I'd be content to say it was an awful time all around, if the RCC was criminal it was in step with EVERY other institutional authority at the time. That's not to defend it, it was indefensible, but there was enough of that to go around. Plus, I think, over time, given some of my own research, that in a time when pretty incredible superstition reigned, it is possible that some of what was under attack as heresy or black magics was worth trying to police out of existence, it was not modern times at all.
 

Typh0n

clever fool
Joined
Feb 13, 2013
Messages
3,497
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I dont think they are any more or less prone to misinformation than any other faith community or even those with ostensibly no faith, I hope it doesnt cause a disagreement but I've never heard of this reference you mention to a hoax involving free masonry, which would suggest to me that its pretty obscure, so I'm not sure that I'd know why an institution like the RCC would decide to prioritise anything about it.

Taxil hoax - Wikipedia


In terms of its history or legacies the RCC has apologised for the factual crimes its played a part in, although I would suggest there is as much good as there is bad, the salem witch trials and other witch hunting atrocities which most people remember were never part of the RCC's history but instead perpetrated by neutral or chaotic (to borrow the AD&D alignments again) christian congregations.

I know that they have, and like I said it's not just the RCC which has done this type of thing, so I'm by no means singling the RCC out or anything.

Plus, I think, over time, given some of my own research, that in a time when pretty incredible superstition reigned, it is possible that some of what was under attack as heresy or black magics was worth trying to police out of existence, it was not modern times at all.

I personally think that stuff would've been fascinating to look at, kinda like what was lost with the library of Alexandria, though obviously on a much, much smaller scale than the library because the library was just a barbaric move...and it wasn't the RCC that did it that, noone really knows who did but sources say it was probably already destroyed by pagan Rome.

I'm just quoting these parts of your post btw because I either agree with the rest and/or don't have anything to add. :)
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
Taxil hoax - Wikipedia




I know that they have, and like I said it's not just the RCC which has done this type of thing, so I'm by no means singling the RCC out or anything.



I personally think that stuff would've been fascinating to look at, kinda like what was lost with the library of Alexandria, though obviously on a much, much smaller scale than the library because the library was just a barbaric move...and it wasn't the RCC that did it that, noone really knows who did but sources say it was probably already destroyed by pagan Rome.

I'm just quoting these parts of your post btw because I either agree with the rest and/or don't have anything to add. :)

I just think for every instance of a highly unusual or interesting manuscripts being burned out of existence or scribes persecuted for anthologising folk wisdom or precursors to modern medicine there were probably two or more of infanticide, poisoning epidemics or serial killers using superstition as a cover (or actually believing it all).

Like great and all as it may have been woodstock and the summer of love are to be seen as part of a bigger picture which includes the Manson family, people recall that the Beatles went to visit the Yogi, learn meditation and some great songs came out of it (one featuring lines from the Tibetan Book of Living and Dying) but they dont recall that the Beatles left quickly again after John Lennon and George Harrison quarreled with the same Yogi about how he seemed to take sexual advantage of the younger female students at his meditation retreats.
 

Typh0n

clever fool
Joined
Feb 13, 2013
Messages
3,497
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I just think for every instance of a highly unusual or interesting manuscripts being burned out of existence or scribes persecuted for anthologising folk wisdom or precursors to modern medicine there were probably two or more of infanticide, poisoning epidemics or serial killers using superstition as a cover (or actually believing it all).

Like great and all as it may have been woodstock and the summer of love are to be seen as part of a bigger picture which includes the Manson family, people recall that the Beatles went to visit the Yogi, learn meditation and some great songs came out of it (one featuring lines from the Tibetan Book of Living and Dying) but they dont recall that the Beatles left quickly again after John Lennon and George Harrison quarreled with the same Yogi about how he seemed to take sexual advantage of the younger female students at his meditation retreats.

Could we agree that abuses, corruption, crime etc, can happen in religions which are chaotic or neutral but also in lawful one ( to borrow your D and D analogy)? I think it's humans that are often messed up, sometimes problems are structural in that a structure allows people to express their defects but blaming the structure itself where people are responsible seems ... irresponsible to say the least.

I don't think the fact a religion is lawful means it is more trustworthy than those less organized, in D/D lawful evil is also a thing...
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
Could we agree that abuses, corruption, crime etc, can happen in religions which are chaotic or neutral but also in lawful one ( to borrow your D and D analogy)? I think it's humans that are often messed up, sometimes problems are structural in that a structure allows people to express their defects but blaming the structure itself where people are responsible seems ... irresponsible to say the least.

I don't think the fact a religion is lawful means it is more trustworthy than those less organized, in D/D lawful evil is also a thing...

I do think that lawful religions are very capable of wickedness, there's a reason I strongly identify with being neutral myself even if I practice as part of a lawful religion, I'm a huge fan of Orwell's criticism of authority or even his personal and speculative sympathy with the anarchists in the Spanish civil war, but just at present I think that its so much easy to find those sorts of criticism of anything lawful that the other side of the story deserves an airing it seldom gets (not least because a lot of the actual lawful sources or individuals are poor represenatives themselves).

I agree with you that often it comes down to the individuals, like any organisation is only as good as the people who make it up, but I always think that the point of institutions is that they are something enduring and that operate independent of the "luck of the draw" in terms of the individuals involved or delivering them.

At which point you segway into a huge debate about individualism versus social-ism or communitarianism (depending on whether you are left or right I suppose), most of the time I think that individualism wins by default. I think its a sign that humanity hasnt gotten out of the historical kinder garden but I appreciate that there'd be others who'd say that failing to appreciate that individualism is where its at and trying to change or transcend that is the the kindergarden or only contributes to it.

Its a complex picture. :unsure::unsure:
 

Typh0n

clever fool
Joined
Feb 13, 2013
Messages
3,497
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I do think that lawful religions are very capable of wickedness, there's a reason I strongly identify with being neutral myself even if I practice as part of a lawful religion, I'm a huge fan of Orwell's criticism of authority or even his personal and speculative sympathy with the anarchists in the Spanish civil war, but just at present I think that its so much easy to find those sorts of criticism of anything lawful that the other side of the story deserves an airing it seldom gets (not least because a lot of the actual lawful sources or individuals are poor represenatives themselves).

I agree with you that often it comes down to the individuals, like any organisation is only as good as the people who make it up, but I always think that the point of institutions is that they are something enduring and that operate independent of the "luck of the draw" in terms of the individuals involved or delivering them.

At which point you segway into a huge debate about individualism versus social-ism or communitarianism (depending on whether you are left or right I suppose), most of the time I think that individualism wins by default. I think its a sign that humanity hasnt gotten out of the historical kinder garden but I appreciate that there'd be others who'd say that failing to appreciate that individualism is where its at and trying to change or transcend that is the the kindergarden or only contributes to it.

Its a complex picture. :unsure::unsure:

Yeah, Indeed. Complex as you say.

I myself identify as either neutral good or true neutral, I'm not a fan of chaos but I also appreciate freedom and individualism, yet I also feel like having a structure to discpline oneself is essential.

I'm a big fan of individualism but not the immature, adolescent kind where selfishness is king.

The thing I find is that no matter what the school, organization, church, institution, etc individuals all have their defects and I agree with you - the insitution should stand for something more than the defects or qualities of the individuals that compose it, this is something I appreciate since it gives it a more long-lasting vision. In a way I'm frustrated by smaller groups that pop up and then disappear when the individuals that compose it are either revealed to be corrupt or they are just no longer motivated to keep the group going, while I do appreciate the intimacy and "local" aspect of such things, I also feel that it has no staying power without a desire to transcend the individuals that compose it so that even if the founder of the group is no longer motivated they can choose someone else to carry the torch so to speak.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
Yeah, Indeed. Complex as you say.

I myself identify as either neutral good or true neutral, I'm not a fan of chaos but I also appreciate freedom and individualism, yet I also feel like having a structure to discpline oneself is essential.

I'm a big fan of individualism but not the immature, adolescent kind where selfishness is king.

The thing I find is that no matter what the school, organization, church, institution, etc individuals all have their defects and I agree with you - the insitution should stand for something more than the defects or qualities of the individuals that compose it, this is something I appreciate since it gives it a more long-lasting vision. In a way I'm frustrated by smaller groups that pop up and then disappear when the individuals that compose it are either revealed to be corrupt or they are just no longer motivated to keep the group going, while I do appreciate the intimacy and "local" aspect of such things, I also feel that it has no staying power without a desire to transcend the individuals that compose it so that even if the founder of the group is no longer motivated they can choose someone else to carry the torch so to speak.

The chaotic good alignment I see as similar to anarchists, all of them, even those which the more purists dismiss as not anarchist enough because they seek to discover some way of creating a legitimate authority through democratic or popular sovereignty means.

My criticism of them would be largely what yours is here, its great but generally does not last, even without the oppression or violent opposition which anarchists tend to blame for any long range impact from their organising or ideas. I think there's precursors to all that which are not explicitly anarchist, or which are libertarian but not really "political" if that makes sense, like reformation splinter groups like the anabaptists and the various revivalists over the years.

I'm a fan of both individualism and socialism/communitarianism because I dont see them as dichotomous, even if a lot of other people have and there are not too bad criticisms of the one by the fans of the other throughout history. Seeing either as a complete picture of human relationships I think is more than a bit reductive and misses the complexity of things.
 
Top