The Brothers Bundy, Lafferty, and Mormon Myth

[_honorentheos]

I only hope that Ceeboo, MG, Huckelberry, Honorentheos, and several others happen to be following this thread, because you will have certainly made their day - if not their week.

It was a well thought out reply, as you noted.

Do you see there being a line between sides in this discussion?

[_Chap]

...

-

If I am not mistaken, this poster was put up in a district of London with a large population of Lubavitchers (a traditionalist Jewish sect), and it was in specific preparation for a procession through the streets as part of a religious celebration. It was addressed only to those taking part, and was removed after some local residents complained that it was offensive.

Edited to add:

Yup, here it is:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 46012.html

A London council has removed “unacceptable” posters instructing women which side of the road they should walk down.

The signs, which have "Women should please walk along this side of the road only" written in both Yiddish and English, were spotted along Stamford Hill in Hackney.

The Shomrim group, whose Jewish volunteers support policing in the area, said they were put up by an orthodox Jewish group during the Torah Procession earlier this week, in order to prevent men and women from the religious sect who are not married or related from touching.

Chaim Hochhauser, from the Stamford Hill Shomrim group, said it had contacted the organisers to inform them the posters "lacked explanation".

He told the Hackney Gazette the request was intended for people from the the Orthodox Jewish community who were attending the street event.

[_ludwigm]

If I am not mistaken, this poster was put up in a district of London with a large population of Lubavitchers (a traditionalist Jewish sect), and it was in specific preparation for a procession through the streets as part of a religious celebration. It was addressed only to those taking part, and was removed after some local residents complained that it was offensive.

Edited to add:
Yup, here it is:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 46012.html

A London council has removed “unacceptable” posters instructing women which side of the road they should walk down.

The signs, which have "Women should please walk along this side of the road only" written in both Yiddish and English, were spotted along Stamford Hill in Hackney.

The Shomrim group, whose Jewish volunteers support policing in the area, said they were put up by an orthodox Jewish group during the Torah Procession earlier this week, in order to prevent men and women from the religious sect who are not married or related from touching.

Chaim Hochhauser, from the Stamford Hill Shomrim group, said it had contacted the organisers to inform them the posters "lacked explanation".

He told the Hackney Gazette the request was intended for people from the the Orthodox Jewish community who were attending the street event.

Even this seems to be a (blatant) derailment of the OP --- and destined to move to the OD, especially because I take part in it --- this is more interesting than the persons mentioned in the title. They are languid Peters...

...
- [#img] http://www.document.no/wp-content/uploa ... 73x630.jpg[/img]

I was who has presented that pic.
DrW --- one of my best friends here; fortunately here are lot of other friends; sorry for not list all of them --- simply SHOWED my pic. As I am a second-class member here, without some basic rights.



BUT I HAVE FRIENDS

[_DrW]

I only hope that Ceeboo, MG, Huckelberry, Honorentheos, and several others happen to be following this thread, because you will have certainly made their day - if not their week.

It was a well thought out reply, as you noted.

Do you see there being a line between sides in this discussion?

Yes.

Without going into much detail, one could contrast two key statements that more or less characterize the two positions.

Symmachus claims that religion is not the pathogen in the ills of society, but instead serves to heal - serves as societal medicine if you will.

I maintain that religion can work, and often does work, as a social pathogen. My view on this issue has not changed. While it has moderated a bit as to the value of small and judiciously applied doses of religion, I believe that, on the whole, the world would be better off with a whole lot less religion.

It should be self-evident that societies comprised of members who base their worldviews on physical evidence, science, logic and reason are going to be better off, in the long run, than those comprised of members who base their worldviews on myth, imagination, and unfounded, often irrational, religious belief.

Symmachus (and Honorenteos) have successfully argued, in my view at least, that my stated position is not all that well supported by the OECD Life Satisfaction evidence that I cited. Symmachus cited Russia as an example where religion could reasonably be claimed to serve as a medicine rather than a pathogen.

Rather than refer to the OECD Life Satisfaction survey results to support my position, perhaps I should have simply gone to the opposing ends of the social spectrum and suggested that one compare the the undoubtedly secular Scandanavian countries with the overtly religious countries of the Islamic Middle East.

Looking at the most overtly religious region on the planet, it does not appear as though religion is much of a social medicine, at least at the level of nations or even regions.

[_Maksutov]

I maintain that religion can work, and often does work, as a social pathogen. My view on this issue has not changed. While it has moderated a bit as to the value of small and judiciously applied doses of religion, I believe that, on the whole, the world would be better off with a whole lot less religion.

It should be self-evident that societies comprised of members who base their worldviews on physical evidence, science, logic and reason are going to be better off, in the long run, than those comprised of members who base their worldviews on myth, imagination, and unfounded, often irrational, religious belief.

Symmachus (and Honorenteos) have successfully argued, in my view at least, that my stated position is not all that well supported by the OECD Life Satisfaction evidence that I cited. Symmachus cited Russia as an example where religion could reasonably be claimed to serve as a medicine rather than a pathogen.

Rather than refer to the OECD Life Satisfaction survey results to support my position, perhaps I should have simply gone to the opposing ends of the social spectrum and suggested that one compare the the undoubtedly secular Scandanavian countries with the overtly religious countries of the Islamic Middle East.

Looking at the most overtly religious region on the planet, it does not appear as though religion is much of a social medicine, at least at the level of nations or even regions.

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.

[_Symmachus]

You're very generous in your disagreement, DrW, but I think we agree more than the conversation is suggesting. If I could just clarify my position:

Symmachus claims that religion is not the pathogen in the ills of society, but instead serves to heal - serves as societal medicine if you will.
....Symmachus cited Russia as an example where religion could reasonably be claimed to serve as a medicine rather than a pathogen.

I think it's a symptom of an underlying disease, not a medicine (to continue the metaphor). Many people believe it that helps, but I see no evidence at all that religion writ large on the body politic improves that body. I think we only differ as to whether this is a cause/effect issue of social ills or one of correlation. I think it's the latter. I think the medicine is better social institutions that promote rule of law and economic stability, but I could never get behind the idea that a society ever needs more religion. It is not a useful answer for any social problem whatsoever. I 100% agree with the following:

Looking at the most overtly religious region on the planet, it does not appear as though religion is much of a social medicine, at least at the level of nations or even regions.

I think it's one of the worst ways to treat social ills. I have no problem with secular governments cooperating with religious organizations for social ends, but the promotion of religion I think is actually a destabilizing force because it undermines the very institutions that I'm talking about. To that extent, religion can be a serious obstacle.

Rather than refer to the OECD Life Satisfaction survey results to support my position, perhaps I should have simply gone to the opposing ends of the social spectrum and suggested that one compare the the undoubtedly secular Scandanavian countries with the overtly religious countries of the Islamic Middle East.

I think this is a good point that illustrates where we differ: what you say is true, but I don't think the Middle East's problems are primarily because of Islam (which I what I think you might say) but of institutional decay in many countries and institutional immaturity in others. In some cases Islam no doubt plays a part, especially as the institutions of formerly secular countries like Egypt (and maybe Turkey soon) are increasingly Islamicized. But in many cases Islam has nothing to do with it. People in the west take for granted just how long it took to develop the institutions that have lessened the need for religion as a cohesive social force. Take the concept of rule of law in a very basic sense where all citizens have the same legal standing (and it it is something we still struggle to live up to). That is an anomalous concept, historically. Or the idea that a ruler of a given polity does not personally own that polity and/or its resources (which is the case in Saudi Arabia, and sort of in Russia in the form of neo-patrimonialism, and it used to be common in the United States in the 19th century after Andrew Jackson...which makes me a think a lot about Joseph Smith and his ideas about how a leader of an organization treats that organization's resources, but we'll save it for another day). That is the norm and may have a biological basis (that's what Francis Fukuyama has been arguing recently), which makes our conceptions odder still. One could go on and on and on. In some cases, religious institutions actually fostered development (e.g. the Catholic church in western Europe in the 6th-10th centuries). But in many cases religion clearly stands in the way of institutional development. I think on this point we could agree, I just don't think blaming religion as the primary cause is very helpful or accurate.

That is all, of course, on the social level. When it comes to the personal level, I don't see how any general rule could be applied. Some people might find religious myths compelling, believable, and helpful. I myself don't. Others might find them harmful. I can see both being the case depending on the individual and the circumstances, but such an individualized understanding means I can't draw any general conclusions about the useful of religious myths on a personal level.

[_Morley]

Great thread. Thanks, all: the back and forth between Symmachus and DrW, especially.

[_DrW]

You're very generous in your disagreement, DrW, but I think we agree more than the conversation is suggesting. If I could just clarify my position:

Symmachus claims that religion is not the pathogen in the ills of society, but instead serves to heal - serves as societal medicine if you will.
....Symmachus cited Russia as an example where religion could reasonably be claimed to serve as a medicine rather than a pathogen.

I think it's a symptom of an underlying disease, not a medicine (to continue the metaphor). Many people believe it that helps, but I see no evidence at all that religion writ large on the body politic improves that body. I think we only differ as to whether this is a cause/effect issue of social ills or one of correlation. I think it's the latter. I think the medicine is better social institutions that promote rule of law and economic stability, but I could never get behind the idea that a society ever needs more religion. It is not a useful answer for any social problem whatsoever. I 100% agree with the following:

Looking at the most overtly religious region on the planet, it does not appear as though religion is much of a social medicine, at least at the level of nations or even regions.

I think it's one of the worst ways to treat social ills. I have no problem with secular governments cooperating with religious organizations for social ends, but the promotion of religion I think is actually a destabilizing force because it undermines the very institutions that I'm talking about. To that extent, religion can be a serious obstacle.

Rather than refer to the OECD Life Satisfaction survey results to support my position, perhaps I should have simply gone to the opposing ends of the social spectrum and suggested that one compare the the undoubtedly secular Scandanavian countries with the overtly religious countries of the Islamic Middle East.

I think this is a good point that illustrates where we differ: what you say is true, but I don't think the Middle East's problems are primarily because of Islam (which I what I think you might say) but of institutional decay in many countries and institutional immaturity in others. In some cases Islam no doubt plays a part, especially as the institutions of formerly secular countries like Egypt (and maybe Turkey soon) are increasingly Islamicized. But in many cases Islam has nothing to do with it. People in the west take for granted just how long it took to develop the institutions that have lessened the need for religion as a cohesive social force. Take the concept of rule of law in a very basic sense where all citizens have the same legal standing (and it it is something we still struggle to live up to). That is an anomalous concept, historically. Or the idea that a ruler of a given polity does not personally own that polity and/or its resources (which is the case in Saudi Arabia, and sort of in Russia in the form of neo-patrimonialism, and it used to be common in the United States in the 19th century after Andrew Jackson...which makes me a think a lot about Joseph Smith and his ideas about how a leader of an organization treats that organization's resources, but we'll save it for another day). That is the norm and may have a biological basis (that's what Francis Fukuyama has been arguing recently), which makes our conceptions odder still. One could go on and on and on. In some cases, religious institutions actually fostered development (e.g. the Catholic church in western Europe in the 6th-10th centuries). But in many cases religion clearly stands in the way of institutional development. I think on this point we could agree, I just don't think blaming religion as the primary cause is very helpful or accurate.

That is all, of course, on the social level. When it comes to the personal level, I don't see how any general rule could be applied. Some people might find religious myths compelling, believable, and helpful. I myself don't. Others might find them harmful. I can see both being the case depending on the individual and the circumstances, but such an individualized understanding means I can't draw any general conclusions about the useful of religious myths on a personal level.

Thank you for taking the time to clarify your position. I apologize if I mischaracterized it or took what you wrote out of context.

Given the contents of your latest post quoted above, I would now respond to Honorentheos' question upthread by saying that I see no significant differences between our respective positions on the central issue of the religion's value and function on a societal / national level.

[_Maksutov]

Great thread. Thanks, all: the back and forth between Symmachus and DrW, especially.

Sometimes the "cesspool" "trailer park" bears wonderful fruit. It's what keeps me coming back.

[_DrW]

I maintain that religion can work, and often does work, as a social pathogen. My view on this issue has not changed. While it has moderated a bit as to the value of small and judiciously applied doses of religion, I believe that, on the whole, the world would be better off with a whole lot less religion.

It should be self-evident that societies comprised of members who base their worldviews on physical evidence, science, logic and reason are going to be better off, in the long run, than those comprised of members who base their worldviews on myth, imagination, and unfounded, often irrational, religious belief.

Symmachus (and Honorenteos) have successfully argued, in my view at least, that my stated position is not all that well supported by the OECD Life Satisfaction evidence that I cited. Symmachus cited Russia as an example where religion could reasonably be claimed to serve as a medicine rather than a pathogen.

Rather than refer to the OECD Life Satisfaction survey results to support my position, perhaps I should have simply gone to the opposing ends of the social spectrum and suggested that one compare the the undoubtedly secular Scandanavian countries with the overtly religious countries of the Islamic Middle East.

Looking at the most overtly religious region on the planet, it does not appear as though religion is much of a social medicine, at least at the level of nations or even regions.

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).