DrW wrote:Maksutov wrote:
The way I see it, DrW, is that religion is a "binding together" of people based on a supernatural narrative which confers on them a special identity.
I was formerly related to a family of drama geeks. They loved to put on productions and would spontaneously enact scenes from various plays in every possible setting. They loved to role play, to pretend to be someone else. To me religious participation involves a lot of role-playing and script-following, but it also allows to you be directed, to be in a glorious fun story, and to feel some assurance that there will be a happy ending.
People combine for a million reasons. In Joseph's society that he was creating, religion, free enterprise and government would all be blended in the interests of a happy outcome. The guiding principle, however, was the domination of the Prophet in a totalitarian position beyond challenge. It's as if someone were trying to scale up a cult's structure and dynamic into a small nation-state. While this sounds like a bit of an Abrahamic fantasy, Smith realized this dream to a greater extent than anyone else in American history.
The 19th century was a century of deep and broad social experimentation. The frontier allowed for and encouraged much of that, but the advent of the popular press and the social shifts brought by industrialization also applied other pressures for creation. It seems to be almost stereotypical that a new social order requires a new mythology, new religions as the enablers and reinforcers of new values and behaviors. And there are always creative people who can weave the stories and the symbols together into a new fabric. The fabric is discarded or patched or rewoven over time and generations as it begins to inevitably unravel. This dynamic seems to repeat throughout the extent and history of movements everywhere, religious, political, even commercial. It's about the care and feeding--and use--of True Believers: the most profitable citizens/believers/customers.
Maksutov,
Looks a though your perspective on the issue is more closely aligned with that of Symmachus, and Honorentheos. I would characterize this perspective as a bit more reserved, contemplative, and non-judgmental as compared to mine.
Perhaps one could consider the differences in perspectives as analogous to those of a successful diplomat (you guys) as opposed to those of one who is eventually responsible for dealing with these realities on the ground on a day to day basis (as I have often been).
While I'm sympathetic to religions, it's quite conditional. I think that cults may be the latent seeds of culture. If we treat them as weeds to eradicate, I'm concerned about the collateral damage to the rest of the ecosystem, not to mention who has authority to determine weed status.
But along with that, I believe we should be merciless in challenging the truth claims of religions, cults, movements of all sorts. We should be merciless in requiring evidence and revoke special pleading and religious privilege wherever we find it. Some of these groups are criminal in nature, but not all. I think they should be treated like everyone else. I would also eliminate tax exemptions and require open accounting.
"You may say I'm a dreamer...but I'm not the only one."
