Without religion, so much beauty would be lost | DeseretNews

[_Pollypinks]

You don't see this roving band of conservative christians??? Do you ever listen to some of the garbage they put out on christian radio? It's about as black and white as I can make it. In fact, it's so vitriolic, I'm amazed they haven't assassinated the president.

[_Hoops]

You don't see this roving band of conservative christians??? Do you ever listen to some of the garbage they put out on christian radio? It's about as black and white as I can make it. In fact, it's so vitriolic, I'm amazed they haven't assassinated the president.

Oh I see.... it's the fact that they're conservative that makes them so dangerous. Okay, it's clear now. It's not that they've actually done anything, just their ideas. Well, yes, I certainly can see how this would make you uncomfortable. Ideas different from yours need to be stamped out as soon as possible.

[_asbestosman]

Where would art be without tragedy? Imagine the world during the Millennium--no wars, no sickness or death, and apparently no natural disasters. In a Zion society, where would there be room for great leaders like Martin Luther and Martin Luther King Jr.? Would we miss Picasso's Destruction of Guernica? We wouldn't have Lincoln's Gettysburg address or Crane's The Red Bade of Courage. What would become of Godzilla if we never dropped the atom bomb on Japan? Without the Nazis, we'd have no Schindler's List and no The Sound of Music.

Without famine, how would we have Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath? What would The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn be without our history of slavery? What would become of To Kill a Mockingbird without racism?

Yeah, I'd miss all those things, but not nearly enough to justify war and famine as good things. Imagine there's no famine. It's easy if you try . . .
-------
I don't think Daniel Peterson is saying that art justifies religion. I'm also not sure I'd call his tastes in art stodgy. He regularly makes references to Monty Python. I think his point is that without religion, there may be some things we'd miss. Hidden in there is, I believe, an implicit assumption that religion isn't bad in the first place (for example, the comment about wars happening without religion). That is, I see an implicit argument that religion isn't bad, but then a fuller discussion about why religion is good. The argument about whether there would be any good art without religion seems kind of silly to me. Doesn't it mostly depend on your taste? He may have overstated his case, but I think at the end of the day I'd hard pressed to call someone who loves Monty Python "stodgy."

[_Morley]

..... He may have overstated his case, but I think at the end of the day I'd hard pressed to call someone who loves Monty Python "stodgy."

My eighty-something father claims to like Rock and Roll. Understandably, he does this so everyone will think he's modern and smart and open. In spite of this, he's never met a Rock lyric, riff, or artist he can stand. Self-descriptors are often an idealized version of what we wish to project about ourselves.

I'm not say that Daniel ain't a Flying Circus fan. He may very well be.

[_Quasimodo]

..... He may have overstated his case, but I think at the end of the day I'd hard pressed to call someone who loves Monty Python "stodgy."

My eighty-something father claims to like Rock and Roll. Understandably, he does this so everyone will think he's modern and smart and open. In spite of this, he's never met a Rock lyric, riff, or artist he can stand. Self-descriptors are often an idealized version of what we wish to project about ourselves.

I'm not say that Daniel ain't a Flying Circus fan. He may very well be.

Hey Morley!

I have my doubts as well. Python epitomized irreverence to authority. Dan seems to be an authority worshiper to me. More of a toady than a revolutionary. If he is a Python fan, it's because he doesn't really understand it.

[_asbestosman]

I have my doubts as well. Python epitomized irreverence to authority. Dan seems to be an authority worshiper to me. More of a toady than a revolutionary. If he is a Python fan, it's because he doesn't really understand it.

My take is that he doesn't agree with everything in it--I doubt he's a fan of The Life of Brian. He just likes to use it to point out absurdities in some of his opponents and inject a bit of levity into discussions. Furthermore, and I'm guessing here, he might say that what he likes about python isn't irreverence to authority, but rather the mocking of foolishness whether that be an authority or not.

Would Daniel Peterson mock a general authority? No. Would he mock a politician? I don't see why not.

[_Quasimodo]

Would Daniel Peterson mock a general authority? No. Would he mock a politician? I don't see why not.

What's the difference?

[_asbestosman]

Would Daniel Peterson mock a general authority? No. Would he mock a politician? I don't see why not.

What's the difference?

Well, in Daniel Peterson's case who signs the paycheck? ;)

More seriously, the difference is whether the person was called of God or merely called of man. If called of God, it may not be such a good idea to mock God's choice. Of course that makes a lot of assumptions when putting God in the list of considerations, but I don't think it's unreasonable to suppose that Daniel Peterson would do that or that it's unreasonable for him to do so.

[_Quasimodo]

I agree with the paycheck statement, although I'm not sure Dan would admit to that (even to himself). :)

I don't suppose that it would be unreasonable for Dan to think that way.

Called of God? Who can truly say whether or not they have been "called of God"?

For me (just my own opinion) spirituality and philosophy are both the search for God or an understanding of how all things work. Religion is the assumption that one has already found it.

Politics and religion were synonymous for thousands of years in our past. Kings and rulers were assumed to be appointed by God. Rulers always used religion to control their populations. Politics is the child of organized religion.

The LDS Church's history is the best example I can think of this.

[_asbestosman]

Politics is the child of organized religion.

Well then, there we go. Without religion we'd have anarchy. You just made the point better than Daniel Peterson did. ;)

A bit more seriously though, I do think it's hard to divorce religion from politics. Both stem from deeply seated beliefs and appear to influence each other even in secular societies.