BurnOneDown said:
Haha, I guess we won't see eye-to-eye on anything. But please, we could do without 'the cry me a river' bullshit. I don't need you to imply that I am whiny. Users can make up their own minds on that.
I didn't mean to come off that way. My apologies.
BurnOneDown said:
I think you are missing the main problem: Religions are specifically adapted to abuse the innocence of children for their own benefits. You don't like child indoctrination? Well I will use Catholic tactic to illustrate it: If religion were a fire, its fuel would be children.
I mean, honestly... A figure of authority should be ashamed to tell a child, "If you disobey these beliefs or leave the religion you will BURN in Hell FOREVER." And of course any good, obedient, God-fearing child will take that to heart. What can be scarier to a child? What can be scarier to disagree with? What can be more manipulative? THESE ARE LITTLE KIDS WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, THEY ARE IMPRESSIONABLE.
Ah, now I see where you're coming from.
What I'm essentially hearing you say is that it's authoritarianism that you find morally questionable, rather than religion. All authoritarian leaders and systems, no matter what form they take, use fear, threats, and intimidation to condition the rank and file into unquestioning obedience. Such systems typically have limited, if any, tolerance for dissent or criticism. You toe the party line or GTFO. Turn pirate or walk the plank.
Whether authoritarianism or democracy can be called inherently better across the whole gamut of human social circles is an interesting philosophical and sociological question worthy of its own thread, really. Feel free to start one if you wish. But regardless of the grand scheme of things, I don't doubt that some groups and types of people find that authoritarianism serves their needs much better, and do what they can to perpetuate it within their groups.
For example, I read a book for a class in college that dealt with the differences between the middle class and working class in America. A working class man observing the social dynamic of several middle class families found it remarkable that the boys were never shamed and called pussies if they cried or showed strong emotion. He was astounded to hear children argue with their parents freely on any point just like equals, and for the parents to actually entertain them with well thought out responses, rather than rebuking them sharply for talking back. The working class propensities he expected represent a sort of authoritarianism. The book went on to describe how it makes good survival sense for each of the two classes to rear their children as they do. Middle class children will likely grow up being paid to think critically. Working class children will likely earn their livelihoods simply taking orders and performing repetetive tasks exactly as trained.
Should it come as any surprise that working class Americans are much more likely to attend a religious congregation that preaches divine punishment for deviants? Of course not, because this dovetails perfectly with all the other realities of life, and consequent values, for this socioeconomic class. If a kid learns that God -- conceived as an authority figure, natch -- will damn him to hell for eternity if he swears too much, this lays the groundwork for easy comprehension of the fact that if he mouths off to his boss or a customer, he'll be damned to unemployment and poverty, quite possibly for some time. See the parallel? This is what I meant in my last post about religion and what it teaches being inseparable from the worldly realities facing the people who practice it.
The average middle class family would not likely attend a very fire n' brimstone congregation very long, because the parents would feel uncomfortable with the attitudes and values being taught to their children there.
Many religious congregations are not authoritarian at all in the way they operate and the values they instill in worshippers. They interpret their holy scriptures and conduct their services in ways that get congregants accustomed to more egalitarian forms of social interaction. I've attended plenty of services involving a talking stick that gets passed around to all, for example. These types of congregations are BY AND FOR people who find this sort of interaction normal and helpful in other areas of their lives.
If it's possible to have religion without authoritarianism, it's just as possible to have the reverse. As I've alluded to in a recent thread in CE&P, Japan is a very secular society that uses entirely secular memes to scare its population into conformity and blind obedience. The Japanese teach their children from an early age that they must never be in the least way burdensome to others, and to give others exactly what they expect, or they will surely be ostracised. Closer to home, I'm sure any successful military has its ways of getting new recruits to believe that they're far better off falling into line with them than drifting back into the chaotic civilian world. I don't think an effective military that's not strongly authoritatian is even possible -- a front line full of dudes who philosophically ponder the deeper implications of pulling that trigger won't even live on in history books.
I digress.
BurnOneDown said:
I haven't read the bible lately, but I highly doubt that Jesus ever said anything about an eternity of torture. I think he preached about an eternal absence of God being hell.
Quite right. Christian theologians typically find no textual evidence for eternal damnation for sinners. The famous 'separating the sheep from the goats' passage contains God's deep disappointment with, and even condemnation of, those who chose to act selfishly rather than compassionately. But nowhere does it talk about them spending an eternity burning in hell -- a place that's not even a part of Jewish cosmology.
BurnOneDown said:
I don't think the specific alteration in the teaching of hell was a mistake by modern religion. They tailor their threats to children to ensure conformity and a consistently large following.
As it must be abundantly clear from my examples, of course I see that the rise of this folk belief is not a mistake. But I disagree with your assessment of the motivation for it. I've heard of many small congregations, as well as sects and cults, which employ heavy handed mind manipulation and fearmongering, but are quite happy to remain small and smug. It seems to me being part of a small 'chosen few' could hold just as much appeal as being part of 'the enormous rising tide of truth and light', depending, again, on the person and their place in the world, and what their psychological needs are.
In conclusion, I don't think it's anything close to fair to tar all religion with the same ugly brush, as a bastion of authoritarian tyrrany. The groups that DO operate in this fashion can be high-profile and sensationalized in the media, which is why we hear about them. (Rev. Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church, anyone?) The humbler ones you don't see, because there isn't much newsworthy about a quiet community hub.
Edit: P.S. BurnOneDown, if you're interested in the ethics of authoritarianism vs. egalitarianism, you'd probably find much of interest in the seemingly neverending debates in educational policy.