|
|
 |
|
|
|
Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article |  from Ladysmith White Mumbaza
Thursday, May 31, 2007 - 18:58
(Agree/Disagree?)
I am interested in NGO work with orphans and poor women. I have done a bit of it myself over the years. I have also seen firsthand how NGOs of this sort operate in South Africa. It doesn't bother me that the one with which you're affiliated is Christian-identified. I believe it's possible for people with a religious affiliation to be benevolent and fundamentally full of loving-kindness. Despite the cruel and often exploitative history of monotheism, individual spiritual evolution is always possible and may be more then norm than non-religious people care to admit. I try not to judge harshly, because life is already hard enough--as I'm sure you're aware. I am somewhat inspired by Mother Theresa, but not enough to become a Catholic nun. I did that once in my life (study to become a nun), and it's a toxic kind of religious mentality for me to practice--a lot of self denial and self sacrifice (aka, fear and guilt)isn't all that good for the soul, imo.
It's not clear to me what sort of ideas you're wanting to share. I assume you're the young Western woman to whom the website links? Sounds like a terrific experience--the beginning of a lifelong career in international child welfare, perhaps. If those little children didn't wear those made-in-India cotton uniforms, would they go naked? And if they went naked, would they have more health problems with parasites and skin diseases than they do now? Do the kids take the uniforms off first chance they get, and if so, what do they wear for playing and doing chores?
(reply to this comment)
| from rainy
Wednesday, May 30, 2007 - 12:36
(Agree/Disagree?)
Poor children in those awful pink uniforms. It reminds me of the white people's failed attempt to turn Australian Aboriginie children into good little white christians. I believe it would be more respectful to embrace their own culture, give land and resources and responsiblity to the tribal leaders, and let them learn their own languages, and to hunt and fish in their own traditions, let them grow up with their own culture and legends rather than christian/judeo ones. What do you think?
(reply to this comment)
| | | | from Oddman
Wednesday, May 16, 2007 - 07:58
 (Agree/Disagree?)
So you take advantage of the fact that these children are less privileged, and force your religion on them, under the guise of humanitarian work?
(reply to this comment)
|  From Ladysmith White Mumbaza
Thursday, May 31, 2007, 19:22
(Agree/Disagree?)
This issue was raised with Theresa of Calcutta when she opened her home for the dying destitute in a former temple to the Hindu goddess of compassion. There was a riot in the neighborhood, because many of the Hindus and Muslims assumed she and the missionary sisters of mercy were baptising the people who were brought to die in her hospice. If these Hindus and Muslims and Sikhs had not been brought to the mercy hospice, they would have died unattended and alone in the street.
To quell the riot at the front door of the hospice, Mother Theresa proclaimed that she expected Hindus to die as good Hindus, Muslims to die as good Muslims, Buddhists as good Buddhists and so on. She was at a very transformative place with her ministry to the destitute. Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu was not unique in her worldview regarding service non-Christians. I think it is a common approach among people who do social welfare work, that is, to accept others pretty much where they are and respect a sacred presence in everyone.
Looks to me like the people running the orphanage are indigenous Christians. That puts them in charge of their own country's social welfare program, most likely in a place where there isn't a state-run system. Who are we to judge these people? Doesn't look like the cult to me. Secular, state-run orphanages have their own downside. In any event, state-run welfare systems always work in partnership with private foundations, many of which are run by religiously inspired people. Taking care of orphans is hard work regardless of your motivation or sense of ethics. TFI didn't do such a good job of taking care of its own orphans, so I can understand your cynicism. In my own experience, religious belief isn't always about exploitation of disadvantaged people.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Falcon
Wednesday, May 16, 2007, 12:03
(Agree/Disagree?)
I lived in Africa for seven years, and I can tell you that those poor people will swallow any religion you throw at them so long as it comes with food and shelter. Chrisitianity goes down well in Africa because it's the religion of the poor man. You don't have to try and improve your life, don't feel bad you're poor--Blessed are the meek, blessed are the poor, for they will inherit the Earth! Yes, in the next life of course, so you don't need to strive to succeed in this one! You don't need to do anything in fact! Just hold out your hand for the NGOs to fill and go to church on Sundays to ensure your place as a rich man in Heaven. Oh and don't forget to give anything you may possess to the pastors so they can put in a good word to God about you.
I went walking in the poor market and there was a fat white American preaching to a little stall vendor that he had come over from the US to build them a church which foundation he helped to lay with his own two hands! Praaaiiise you Jeeesus! I looked at him with disgust and said, "How about hospitals, schools, job opportunities through business--hell, anything to help them succeed! They've got a church on every corner now, and that hasn't helped them in this life one iota!" I say raise the churches to the ground and use the brick and mortar to build the people homes, shops, pharmacies- life!
All the church and religion has done in Africa is make the people appathetic about their lives. They no longer see any need to do anything to better their existence on this planet because great is their reward in Heaven. They said the prayer and therefore they are passing through the pearly gates as rich men. What a travesty! What a lie! What a crime!
I would only support any honest human in Africa who wishes to work for what they want, and who desires to succeed more than anything. But, unfortunately, the majority would rather hold out their hands. They've been spoiled by the West, NGOs and Christian charitable organisations to where they do not see the need to work for what they want. They just wait for the hand out which is sure to come. End every sentence with "Praise God" and "God Bless You" and this is sure to land you a crisp ten dollar bill by the American Christian crusader.
This is why it is called a black hole. Because it is. I am not discounting those who I know and who are valued friends of mine who literally fought their way out of the gutter and succeeded. And you know what? I would rather support them who have already made something of their lives, because I know my money would not be wasted.
I hadn't meant to rant, but it's easy for people to play on others sympathy and make them feel guilty that they are not as well off. What does not occur to the average poor man on the street in Africa is that the white man who is wealthy got there by hard work, not by sitting under the banana tree waiting for the fruit to fall. Certainly not by expecting everyone else to give them their hard earned cash. Colour and race has little if anything to do with it. I have seen wealthy and successful Africans who got that way by rolling up their sleeves and using the brains they were given.
And in my opinion, Western Christianity in Africa supports this notion of "blessed" poverty more than any other religion. There are more Christian con-men in Africa than anywhere I have seen in the world. The pastors are in it for the money and the people are in for an excuse to do nothing and they are all happy wallowing in the big lie! (reply to this comment) |
| | From Marx, the Horse
Thursday, May 31, 2007, 19:51
(Agree/Disagree?)
You make an excellent critique of religion as a social institute. You've provided with strong, insightful observations that are full of truth.
Being something of an addict myself, my response to the "opiate of the people" argument is, "So what?" Whatever it takes to get by and live a sane and ethical life in the process is OK with me. Religious belief helps a lot of people endure the difficulties of life. Yes, it's a crutch and a symptom of desperation. I suppose being so poor you don't know where your next meal is coming from is a pretty desperate way to live. Since I don't worry about where my next meal will come from or where I will sleep tonight or how HIV is killing me or wiping out my family, I can afford to be critical of people who use religion as a crutch.
I have also been to Africa, and I will offer a light challenge to your anecdote about "wealthy and successful Africans who got that way by rolling up their sleeves and using the brains they were given." I'm sure these people exist. I'd be willing to bet that few of them are atheist, agnostic, or secular materialists. Putting any assumptions about the utility of the puritan work ethic aside, I will offer another challenge: Working and middle-class Africans are still much poorer than their Western counterparts. There are parts of Africa that comprise a Fourth World. The resource depletion and structural inequities are so stark that even those who succeed through hard work and good fortune are still disadvantaged by Western standards. That is, at least, the premise underlying the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Seems to me that if guilt isn't a motivator, maybe common sense and gratitude for the accident birth to good enough parents living in a developed country can go a long way toward forming a commitment to the social and economic empowerment of the less fortunate. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Falcon
Friday, June 01, 2007, 01:58
(Agree/Disagree?)
I agree with you in many of your opinions and my reply to your challenge that "Working and middle-class Africans are still much poorer than their Western counterparts", is that while yes, that may be true, I believe they should be compared against their African counterparts, not Western nations. With Chrisitianity, which the colonial whites brought into Africa, came a loss of tribal identity and culture. Suddenly it was not okay to wear their native skins, they had to cover up from neck to ankle. They were perfectly happy living their tribal lives until the white man came over and made them aware that they were somehow "different". Different from what? A culture that was not theirs? So what? That's what makes identity!
The debate, I suppose, is whether educating them to the white man's standards can really change the crux of what and who they are--an African! An example of this is a problem they were having in Uganda with one of the cattle herding warrior tribes called the Karamajong, who were, interestingly, actually part of a greater tribe together with their Kenyan counterparts the Turkanah. This tribe was divided when the whites ran lines through the land and called them borders. Anyway, returning to the story, some of the youth of the Karamajong were sent to the UK to be given a greater "life-chance" through higher education. On their return to Entebbe airport dressed in western suits and highly qualified, what did they do? Drive back up to their tribe, strip off their suits, pick up their AK-47s, and start cattle raiding again.
They survived for thousands of years before the white man, they are only in the mess they are in because of the white man, perhaps the West should leave them alone to live how they like. Giving them their Western ideologies, religion and way of life, is not necessarily right for them. In fact, it may actually be making things worse. They got on fine before they had Christianity to "comfort" them in their "poverty". But perhaps what we consider poverty is not the same as what they consider poverty. The happiest Africans I know are those who live in their little villages tilling their land and who would be considered poor to us, but they are happy, so what?
I will give one more story, to show this point and then I will shut up. I'm sorry this is dragging into another essay! It would be easier if we could talk about it verbally. A friend of mine, Rosemary Kingsland, lived in the Amazon for two years to write a book about an obscure tribe there who had avoided all influence from the outside world. Eventually the white missionaries succeeded in infiltrating them and the tribe eventually became divided between the "Christians" and non-Christians. This tribe was nomadic hunter-gatherers. They would journey through a chartered loop in the Amazon jungle. Every time they stopped, they would eat what they had grown a year before, and then plant again so that the next time they came through, the crop would be ready for eating once more. In this way, they never starved, indeed, ate quite well.
When the white missionaries came through, they made those who they baptised settle down into a little village where they built a church. They made them dress up in long dresses, which resulted in many deaths when the little children went swimming and the dresses tangled in the weeds and drowned them. Then, as they no longer could use their method of circular planting, they began to face starvation. To remedy this, the missionaries started flying in canned food. In the end, all they lived on was a diet of canned food. They lost their jungle skills and would have died if the missionaries had left and not kept them alive through their Western medicines and cans of food.
This is my point: Why force on them a religion that is not theirs, a culture that is not theirs, because we feel lucky to be born "better off" than them? Is that really necessarily the case?(reply to this comment) |
| | From Marx
Friday, June 01, 2007, 07:53
(Agree/Disagree?)
Once again, you make excellent observations and arguments about issues related to missionaries and the business of social and economic development. You seem to have the passion and perspectives of an anthropologist, and I respect that.
Nevertheless, there's no turning back the clock. White missionaries, colonial entrepreneurs, and Western governments have disrupted indigenous cultures all over the globe for centuries. The question is, What now? I understand your concerns about the cultural hegenomy of Christian missionaries, but that doesn't change the fact that millions and millions of African children are being orphaned by the HIV epidemic in the young adult population. Unless you're a conspiracy theorist, there's no way to lay the blame for the devastating impact of HIV on the African continent at the feet of the whites. African nationals are at least partially responsible for decisions that have taken them down this road to a major human capital disaster.
With regard to the Amazonian basin, once again, we have to lay some of the responsibility for a looming environmental disaster at the feet of the South American nationals. European migrants have been ripping off indigenous lands for centuries, and now the chickens are coming home to roost. But when the icebergs melt, the coastlines flood, and the weather goes whackmutt, it isn't the rich and well educated who go without clean drinking water. There's a whole lot of working poor Mestizos who are cut off from their indigenous roots AND the benefits of the dominant colonial culture. Case in point: New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.
There's no turning back the clock--people who share environmental and humanitarian concerns must look for ways to move forward, which is why I mentioned the Gates Foundation. There is actually a soft science of international social welfare and sustainable economic development that utilizes applied anthropology.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Falcon
Friday, June 01, 2007, 09:37
(Agree/Disagree?)
Here's a crazy thought! If, as you so aptly put it, there's no turning back the clock, we could look at the depletion of natural resources and environmental disasters in a positive light. Perhaps the steady decay of this planet will force the human race to expand outwards, and move on to other planets and galaxies. Why must we fight over this one little globe, when there are millions out there!(reply to this comment) |
| | From Fist
Wednesday, May 30, 2007, 11:25
(Agree/Disagree?)
Dear Falcon,
What is your definition of 'Western Christianity'? You generalise about Christian missions as if you have observed every single one and you also assume that they have established some system of exploitation of the African belief system. Your statement that 'Western Christianity in Africa supports this notion of "blessed" poverty more than any other religion' is absurd. You make statements altogether lacking in evidence. I would be most interested to discover how you came to the conclusion that Christian missionaries in Africa are there to exploit the individual African. Also, I would like to know how the pastor's are 'in it for the money.' Altogether your argument is lacking fluency and it is perhaps better that you not talk about religion.
I anxiously await your reply.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Falcon
Wednesday, May 30, 2007, 12:17
(Agree/Disagree?)
Dear Fist,
I should have narrowed in on my interpretation of 'Western Christianity', because I was, in fact, referring primarily to the US flavour of Born Again Christians. But my argument was not about where religion, and Christianity particularly, has succeeded in Africa, but where it has failed. I'm sure, were I to present both sides of the picture like a university paper, and thereby come to a "fair" conclusion, I would draw attention to those Christian organisations who were doing much to help the betterment of the African people. This, however, was not at the heart of my argument.
Obviously, it would be practically impossible to observe every single Christian mission in Africa--most social scientists do not interview every single mother, for instance, to draw a general conclusion on how the system supports or fails them. You say my statement that "Western Christianity in Africa supports this notion of "blessed" poverty more than any other religion" is absurd. First of all, have you lived there? I am basing my "assumptions", as absurd as they may be to you on hard evidence taken from the seven years I spent in not one, but eight different countries on the continent. I have observed many things, and I have worked with many Christian charities and churches. I have also worked with many Hindus and Muslims and just normal non-religious organisations, so my statement was taken from my personal experience. Most people's views are taken from personal study and experience, so for me to tell someone else that what they think is absurd, is, in itself, absurd.
I never stated that "Christian missionaries in Africa are there to exploit the individual African." They are there to gain further converts to their religion while doing charitable works along the way as their religion teaches. It is unfortunate that some are exploited. But my point was, while they may think that the poor little beggar man is "saved" just because he said some prayer, or came to their church, in reality it means little when that beggar will do anything to stave off another day of starvation, say any prayer and go to any church if it means a free handout.
I know many who would get "saved" one day and go visit their local witch doctor the next.
As to your question of how the pastors are 'in it for the money', that is quite simple. The more people they pack into their church, the bigger offering they can rake in per sermon. I knew many Africans who became preachers because it beat an honest 9-5. The pastors in Africa, for the most part (so you do not lynch me for making sweeping statements), are richer than the average local. They dress well, eat well, have good houses and cars. There was a great revival of American pastors who swept through Uganda one year (all of them wealthy and fat). They preached prosperity, telling the locals if they were not wealthy, they were doing something wrong because everyone could be rich. The first way of becoming "rich" and reaping God's monetary benefits was through giving money to God's pastors. These poor people were giving a month, two months, some of them a year's worth of their salaries in the hopes that God would reward them and make them rich. Many of the Ugandan pastors would travel to the US and talk at some of these wealthy churches (nearly every African church or pastor has a patron church in the US supplying them with money), they would fundraise to "build a new church, or a new roof for their church" and come back with their pockets bulging with cash. Then they would get up there on their pulpits and tell the people, "look at me! God has blessed me! I am rich! If you want God to bless you, put your money into the offering plate to build our new roof!"
Do you understand where my rage at the hypocrisy stems from? Although I dealt with a religious aspect to the problem in Africa, I also was trying to bring up the basic problem of many African nations who have been spoiled by the West and NGOs into free handouts even when they are no longer in crisis, thereby teaching them nothing about helping themselves, nor giving them any incentive to, when they can put out their hand and expect someone to fill it. And in some ways, Christianity and perhaps religion in general, has supported this notion that they need not work hard to make something of this life, because they can expect paradise in the next. Why, then the poor man might as well be better off dead, all the sooner to reach his mansion in the world waiting beyond his grave. Perhaps my argument only lacks fluency because you do not understand it.
I will talk about religion whenever and however I like, Fist. I need not have your permission to do so.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Fist
Thursday, May 31, 2007, 12:40
 (Agree/Disagree?)
What can I say. Your 'bourgeois' intelligence has stumped me. Although I would like to ask one question. How can you expect people to understand your statements when you say things like this; 'Christianity and perhaps religion in general,has supported this notion that they need not work hard to make something of this life'? How does 'religion in general' support this idea? That is why I don't understand you. If you are confident enough to make statements like that it would be nice if you defined what your concept of 'religion' is.
I know that this is not a University paper, but you seem to like writing a bit and I think it's only fair to your readers that you demonstrate that you aren't just ranting and are actually saying something. Therefore it would be most appreciated if you could demonstrate a knowledge of such subjects before you start making statements of such vagueness that it becomes hard to understand. I have no doubt that you have seen much more of Africa than I have. However that is not the point. You speak as if you are an authority and that is a dangerous stance to maintain.
To be honest I don't even know why I'm writing this. I suppose I enjoy making others peeved.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Falcon
Thursday, May 31, 2007, 13:58
(Agree/Disagree?)
As I said to you before, I am speaking from my experiences, not as an authority. I have not accredited myself with such a distinction, nor would I. It is my opinion and I have a right to it, just as you and everyone on this site have a right to theirs. Why you have chosen to take my ideas so personally is beyond me. Perhaps instead, you would like to enlighten us on your own.
I believe I just gave you a number of examples to support my theory of Christianity supporting the notion of their followers not working hard to make something of this life. If these examples were vague, I apologise.
If you disagree, just say so. If you don't understand me, that does not bother me in the least. I am not writing to gain popular support, merely to get ideas off my chest.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Samuel
Tuesday, May 29, 2007, 07:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
Of course, Falcon, there is some truth to what you've said. I've seen too many pastors preach propserity without work. Just believe, and your blessings will come. Ridiculous! But I do believe that most people that are in Africa are there for the right reasons, and they do provide care that is needed like digging wells, food and medical care, caring for the orphans and disadvantaged. Someone has to do these things, and frankly I think that's the job of the church. It's one of the few things that Jesus actually asked his disciples to do.
Of course Christian charities are going to build churches, but Islamic charities are doing the same, are they not? Don't all the religious organizations do whatever they can to propogate their belief system to the people they are providing care to? If the Church decides not to do that, won't that put them at a disadvantage? The churhces are needed because someone has to continue supporting that village. I don't want to keep doing it over the next 30 years because then another village in another part of that country is left without hope. Why should the money I'm sending go to keep supporting and staffing the hospital in that village when with proper training, the people there could support it (at least some) and staff that hospital, allowing the staff to move on to another village? I don't think that's being mean, I think that's being wise. I think that for the charity that is being provided to be fully effective and make a lasting difference in the community, they have to think in terms of the future. They have to focus on education, focus on working for what you get, and focus on the village coming together to improve the quality of life.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Falcon
Wednesday, May 30, 2007, 05:34
(Agree/Disagree?)
As per usual, you missed the point entirely, Sam. Of course there are plenty of other religious organisations who do charitable work. I merely mentioned Christians because they are the loudest in Africa and this woman's charity is Christian. That was not the point I was driving at. There are also plenty of NGOs who are not religious at all, who, in fact, do far more such as Save The Children, Oxfam and others.
If you missed the point of my post, then there is no point to expound. You mustn't take anti-religious postings so personally.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Rossie
Wednesday, May 16, 2007, 22:26
(Agree/Disagree?)
All you have said is the truth, and I support your comment. But what I can say is that we cant see children suffer and leave them to sufer because of the mistakes of their parents. The orphaned children have no one to turn to, should we leave them because they have to work?
I am working and working hard to support the needy children, I have never seated back because I am the founder of the organisation to solicit money and pay myself, and even forget about the needy. I am employed and I try very hard to run this organisation.
I am against the handouts, I am against the bulky salaries NGOs pay their employees and leave very little for their projects, and I am agaist those people sitting and waiting to be given. I believe in empowering people create opportunities for them to work and earn a living, but not give them while they are seated. that can be done to a blind man, or someone with no hands and legs. We have to help the poor by empowering them, giving them skills, improving agriculture, expanding their bussinesses etc
But my dear friend let us unite and help make this a reality, we cant be tired or give up on them, because they will never know the truth, but if we can tell them the truth as we help them I believe it will make a big difference. What about the children? Can we leave them suffer? No1 That is my worry, I will not let that happen in my community, and what I tell them is that they have to read hard and work hard so that they can be different from others. So i hope you will change mind and continue to help by telling them the truth. Please let us not criticise others, let us not criticise religions, but let us tell them the truth.
That is why Tumaini is different, it is empowering the poor, giving them tools, skills to be self reliant and not depend on handouts, not to sit and wait for preachers from abroad to give them handouts, not to depend on whites to send them a dollar, but use the dollar to do something which can sustain her and family, which can stop her from begging.
Dont be discouraged, continue helping the poor, just be good and lets unite to make this come a relaity.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From ange
Wednesday, May 30, 2007, 06:40
(Agree/Disagree?)
There’s nothing wrong with finding Marxism interesting. On the one hand, Marx was, as Falcon says, writing at a certain time and with certain utopian ideals. But at the same time, a lot of what he does is to identify certain aspects of society that are problematic and many of those thing are still relevant today. The idea of dialectial materialism, the alienation of the worker etc. But as you say, society is far more socially fragmented now, which is something generally associated with the postmodern condition. And a lot of postmodern Marxists have some very interesting ideas (like Fredric Jameson) that are really worth reading.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From conan
Tuesday, May 29, 2007, 17:02
(Agree/Disagree?)
'Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the *protest* against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusions about its condition is the demand to give up a condition that need illusions. The criticism of religion is therefore in embryo the criticism of the vale of woe, the halo of which is religion. Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers from the chain, not so that man will wear the chain without any fantasy or consolation but so that he will shake off the chain and cull the living flower.'
That is the full text from Karl Marx's *Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right*. I showed the full text to include more of Marx's in depth thoughts before the quote 'opium of the people' gets lambasted by any Christians who would denounce it as a Marxist saying from the mouth of an atheist Marxist with no thought as to the insight with which the 'father of socialism' actually dedicated his thought process and came to his remarkable conclusion. I say remarkable because he was a Jew of rabbinical descent and was speaking philosophically about religion in general, and not against Christianity as so many Christians are deluded into thinking.
Anyways, it's a passage that I've come to appreciate, and maybe some others on this site will as well.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From vix
Tuesday, May 29, 2007, 17:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
Thanks for that. It is very interesting. But I'm not sure I entirely agree with this part: 'The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness.' While I agree with the overall thrust, I think there is an element of simplification here that does not do the subject justice. Or maybe it works on an individual level but not when one speaks of the collective. But that's a discussion for another day.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From conan
Wednesday, May 30, 2007, 13:56
(Agree/Disagree?)
When you think of the extent to which religion oppresses its followers and dictates their actions, from health care, (i.e. blood transfusion refusals or the belief that AIDS is their god's punishment) to the rules of sexual intercourse, (some laws even on a state level here in the US define homosexuality as anything that isn't 'face to face' heterosexual procreation) to the diet, (think Kosher, Haram, Halal, or the 'filth' of pigs in monotheistic faiths) it's no wonder that religion causes so much strife, anger, antagonism, and hatred.
Gender inequality is a highly religious notion. 'Man' is created in God's image, remember? A woman, meanwhile, is formed from man for his 'use and comfort'. In the Talmud it commands the religious follower to thank his maker every day that he was not born a woman. As Christopher Hitchens says, 'Who but a slave thanks his master for what his master has decided to do without bothering to consult him?' Sound familiar?
Religion may be the opiate of the people, but it is intended to be much more. It is intended to be the measuring stick against which morality is evaluated, and it is also the rod by which men and women are determined to have 'sinned' or not! To me, the abolition of religion is absolutely required for the genuine, unadulterated happiness of the people. As long as there are clerics who can interpret 'God's' will and mandate 'His' justice, there will be oppression of the humankind's spirit, free will, and abilities to function as a society without restraint.(reply to this comment) |
| | From vix
Thursday, May 31, 2007, 11:59
(Agree/Disagree?)
I am certainly not disputing any of the above, conan, except maybe some aspects of what you say in the last paragraph. But that could just be due to my subjective way of reading what others write on here - so much of the argument is left to me to fill in that it makes genuine understanding of another's position quite elusive. On the whole, though, I do agree with you.
Shame that so much of the intellectually stimulating discourse that I engage in takes place through this medium where it's all rather limited in scope. Would be great to have some good and proper discussion with you and others here, preferably after much drink.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From conan
Thursday, May 31, 2007, 12:39
(Agree/Disagree?)
I'm unsure which aspects of the last paragraph you dispute while concurring with my thoughts of the first two. I was under the (apparently misguided) impression that the last paragraph was a summation of the first two and I was attempting to encapsulate my thoughts so I didn't end up writing a book or quoting a series of books with citations.
I'm not sure what is left to be filled in. I mentioned a few brief observations on why abolition of religion is, in mine and Karl Marx's opinion, necessary for freedom and happiness. If you disagree, please tell me what you disagree with so that we can attempt to have a discourse instead of an ambiguous 'open to interpretation' gripe. Or if you simply feel that I did not include enough material to legitimately present my points, I'll be happy to expound. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
]
[About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]