The Four Institutions

[Flavus Aquila]

Representative of what? They represented a religious organization committing atrocities. I find people who attempt to justify those kind of atrocities to be just as sickening as those who try to justify the Holocaust. Real people suffered and died, but to protect the image of a silly church, people want to rationalize and minimize some of the insidious actions it took in its history. It's disgusting.

I'll use an example to illustrate my point.
Consider a father of a household. If he is mild, fair, maleable, but enforces discipline when necessary....etc. One would say that he is a fairly good father/man. The fact that one might be able to catalogue two instances of him slamming a door in anger and once of losing his patience with his wife and telling her to f*** off, does not give one licence to say that this man is summarily a door slammer and has a foul mouth. The instances cited are not representative.

Similarly, some historical attrocities commited by one church/religion or another may or may not be representative of the consistent action/character of that institution. This is especially the case if that institution did not mandate/execute the said attrocities, but was simply associated with them through circumstance.

That was my point within the context of arguing that religion should not hold state power. If one were to argue that the Church does, for better or worse, exercise state power - and if one uses historical attrocities as examples, this only strenthens the arguement that religious organisations are competent to exercise state power. My position is that religion should exercise moral/ethical power, but not state power.

 

[Satya]

I'll use an example to illustrate my point.
Consider a father of a household. If he is mild, fair, maleable, but enforces discipline when necessary....etc. One would say that he is a fairly good father/man. The fact that one might be able to catalogue two instances of him slamming a door in anger and once of losing his patience with his wife and telling her to f*** off, does not give one licence to say that this man is summarily a door slammer and has a foul mouth. The instances cited are not representative.

You are equating people being burned on the stake and brutally tortured to someone slamming a door and cussing? That is sick.

Similarly, some historical attrocities commited by one church/religion or another may or may not be representative of the consistent action/character of that institution. This is especially the case if that institution did not mandate/execute the said attrocities, but was simply associated with them through circumstance.

Oh good. I guess if someone murders one of your relatives, as long as they have historically been a good person, then it makes it alright.

That was my point within the context of arguing that religion should not hold state power. If one were to argue that the Church does, for better or worse, exercise state power - and if one uses historical attrocities as examples, this only strenthens the arguement that religious organisations are competent to exercise state power. My position is that religion should exercise moral/ethical power, but not state power.

We agree on one thing.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

You are equating people being burned on the stake and brutally tortured to someone slamming a door and cussing? That is sick.



Oh good. I guess if someone murders one of your relatives, as long as they have historically been a good person, then it makes it alright.



We agree on one thing.

BIG BIG BIG BIG difference between comparing and equating - and you know that.

If one of my relatives was murdered by a Russian, it doesn't make me think that Russia as a state is evil. No, by no means. Even if the Russian was a Russian soldier, acting under state orders - I've no hate of Russia or Russians.

Similarly, back to my previous example, a wife wouldn't hate a husband for flying off the handle once and saying the F word. Not if she was reasonable.

 

[EloquentBohemian]

One must remember that the atrocities carried out by any one religion or ideology, such as Stalinist Communism, were the result of the people of that time interpreting a particular religion or ideology, similar to present-day interpretations of the Koran or the Bible and the resulting ramifications of those interpretations.
Any religion, ideology, market system or political system is only as good as the people interpreting it.

I still hold that artists, poets, and mimes should rule.
I would pay to see a televised session of a Senate debate where all the Senators were mimes.

 

[Satya]

BIG BIG BIG BIG difference between comparing and equating - and you know that.

If one of my relatives was murdered by a Russian, it doesn't make me think that Russia as a state is evil. No, by no means. Even if the Russian was a Russian soldier, acting under state orders - I've no hate of Russia or Russians.

Similarly, back to my previous example, a wife wouldn't hate a husband for flying off the handle once and saying the F word. Not is she was reasonable.

Let's get something clear. You are saying that people should have a good impression of the Roman Catholic Church because it doesn't brutally torture and murder people most of the time. Sorry, but that is not a good defense. If you want to make a comparison, I don't think there are many employers out there who would hire a man just because he doesn't brutally torture and murder people most of the time.

 

[Satya]

One must remember that the atrocities carried out by any one religion or ideology, such as Stalinist Communism, were the result of the people of that time interpreting a particular religion or ideology, similar to present-day interpretations of the Koran or the Bible and the resulting ramifications of those interpretations.
Any religion, ideology, market system or political system is only as good as the people interpreting it.

I still hold that artists, poets, and mimes should rule.
I would pay to see a televised session of a Senate debate where all the Senators were mimes.

It's seems a little too convenient to me that an ideology can only be judged by the people who are currently practicing it.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

Let's get something clear. You are saying that people should have a good impression of the Roman Catholic Church because it doesn't brutally torture and murder people most of the time. Sorry, but that is not a good defense. If you want to make a comparison, I don't think there are many employers out there who would hire a man just because he doesn't brutally torture and murder people most of the time.

Not a good impression, just a realistic one. If you go to any parish, you won't find battle plans, nor will you find large bonfire pits. Neither would you find such things at any parish throughout a 2000 year history, except for some particular instances. My point is that particular peculiar instances are that. It isn't reasonable to deny them, nor is it reasonable to say that they are representative of the whole.

Using particular instances to characterise a significant proportion of the current world's population is like racisim. If some black man killed a white woman because she wasn't black, one cannot say that blacks hate whites.

Anyhow, the overall point is that if we are going to discuss the function of the 4 big institutions in society meaningfully, we cannot get far if we just start calling scientists evil because they invented a particular weapon; nor can we call politicians evil because of figures like Hilter, Stalin and Mao; nor can we call merchants evil because of the oil companies; nor can we call Churches evil because of crusades or inquisitions, when you look at what actually happened in history.

To discuss the big 4, you have to look at them realistically for what they are and what their focus is.

 

[EloquentBohemian]

It's seems a little too convenient to me that an ideology can only be judged by the people who are currently practicing it.

But what is an ideology if it is not put into practice?
It is the interpretation of any ideology, religious or secular, which demonstrates how people use it. An ideology not used is merely thoughts in the mind or words on paper. Ideologies do not kill, war, maim or persecute, those who implement them with their interpretetions do.

 

[Faye]

None. POWER TO THE PEOPLE!

 

[Satya]

My point is that particular peculiar instances are that. It isn't reasonable to deny them, nor is it reasonable to say that they are representative of the whole.

Kind of like how you were trying to characterize secular governments by bringing up the atrocities Stalin brought forth?

To discuss the big 4, you have to look at them realistically for what they are and what their focus is.

Church - conformity
State - order
Market - profit
Science - advancement

Is that a realistic assessment of focus?

 

[EloquentBohemian]

Yes, some posters in this thread have done so by adding "Philosophy".

I don't disagree. I found it very interesting that many of the posters included "philosophy" and "spirituality" as alternative options to religious organizations.

So, I looked back at the entire thread and there they were - philosophy suggested on post #21 and ethics on post #87 (yours, in fact), so if I came off as arrogant, I apologise and a Fish-slap Dance for me.

Church - conformity
State - order
Market - profit
Science - advancement

Is that a realistic assessment of focus?

State/Order and Market/Profit I agree with.
I'm not sure about Science/Advancement. Possibly 'advancement' is too vague.
Church/Conformity doesn't sound right. I don't think that any organised religion seek others to conform per se, I would think it more in spiritual terms, but no single word comes to mind.

One thing about this thread is that it has induced me to think in terms of what these 'labels' used to abstractly refer to vague sectors of society really mean. What do these four labels actually refer to? Do they mean different things to each individual?

I'm looking forward to some insight coming out of this thread.

 

[just me]

Insight? What do these four have in common?

 

[mayflow]

Why is church defined as conformity? Is church supposed to be the same as religion?
What "church" are we talking about? The church of conformity? Where is that located
and how many people attend? Hows about the churches of charity? or the churches
proclaiming meditation is the way, or the ones who encourage freedom of thoughtto be sought?

 

[Flavus Aquila]

Kind of like how you were trying to characterize secular governments by bringing up the atrocities Stalin brought forth?



Church - conformity
State - order
Market - profit
Science - advancement

Is that a realistic assessment of focus?

Secular governments are very different from atheistic ones. Almost all democratic governments are secular, but almost none are atheistic.

That said, you make a good point. Atheistic governments, such as that of the former USSR seem largely (not isolated examples, but rather the whole swathe of them) to focus humanity's innate religiousity in a god like cult around the leader of the state at their inception. However, it isn't fair for me to characterise such governments as always deifying their leaders, as that simply is not the case in China now, nor was it the case in the last days of the USSR. Mind you, both the USSR and China stopped diefying their leaders at the same time as religious liberties were being restored, so something of my original point holds: religion in a state is necessary to moderate religiousity from extremes, and to hold forward an authority greater than power of arms or money - the true, the good and the beautiful.

My take:
Church - helps citizens/state to value what is right/good.
State - imposes order so that NEEDS are met.
Market - accomodates to the WANTS of the citizen.
Science - helps the state/individuals to know.

 

[Satya]

Secular governments are very different from atheistic ones. Almost all democratic governments are secular, but almost none are atheistic.

That said, you make a good point. Atheistic governments, such as that of the former USSR seem largely (not isolated examples, but rather the whole swathe of them) to focus humanity's innate religiousity in a god like cult around the leader of the state at their inception. However, it isn't fair for me to characterise such governments as always deifying their leaders, as that simply is not the case in China now, nor was it the case in the last days of the USSR. Mind you, both the USSR and China stopped diefying their leaders at the same time as religious liberties were being restored, so something of my original point holds: religion in a state is necessary to moderate religiousity from extremes, and to hold forward an authority greater than power of arms or money - the true, the good and the beautiful.

Correction. Freedom of religion is necessary. Not religion itself. A state that says people are not allowed to practice any religion and a state that says people can only practice one religion will both inherently be problematic.

 

[Satya]

Why is church defined as conformity? Is church supposed to be the same as religion?

I defined church in the beginning of this thread. If you continue to pose the same question again, I will have you banned from this thread.

 

[just me]

I defined church in the beginning of this thread. If you continue to pose the same question again, I will have you banned from this thread.

Not everyone agrees with your definitions. Not everyone agrees, period. Should this discussion be strictly based on your definitions, all my responses in this thread might should be removed, as every other response that disagrees with your definitions.
Freedom of definition is necessary. Not definition itself. A thread that does not allow anybody to self-define and a thread that imposes the practice of only one definition would be boring and problematic.

 

[Satya]

Not everyone agrees with your definitions. Not everyone agrees, period. Should this discussion be strictly based on your definitions, all my responses in this thread might should be removed, as every other response that disagrees with your definitions.
Freedom of definition is necessary. Not definition itself. A thread that does not allow anybody to self-define and a thread that imposes the practice of only one definition would be boring and problematic.

I don't mind people discussing the definitions. I just don't like mayflow asking the same question over and over again. That is the third time he has asked that question. He has also been attacking the definitions from the get go, even though this is a philosophical discussion, which means it requires a bit of predefining.

And frankly, I don't mind if you and mayflow don't participate in this thread because I prefer hearing from posters who actually contribute something to the discussion.

 

[Satya]

One thing about this thread is that it has induced me to think in terms of what these 'labels' used to abstractly refer to vague sectors of society really mean. What do these four labels actually refer to? Do they mean different things to each individual?

You have a point. If I were to ask a religious individual what they think the focus of a church is then they would probably say things like "salvation", "transcendence", and "goodwill". Whereas if I asked an atheist, they would probably say things like, "control", "manipulation", and "wealth". The definitions are pretty relative, which is in part why I had to predefine them at the beginning of the thread, but I've been happy to hear when others contribute their own ideas and definitions. From that I've gleaned that people consider "philosophy" and "spirituality" to somehow be different than organized religion and more deserving of power within society.

My take:
Church - helps citizens/state to value what is right/good.
State - imposes order so that NEEDS are met.
Market - accomodates to the WANTS of the citizen.
Science - helps the state/individuals to know.

Ethics teach people how to determine what is right/good. Would you argue that religious organizations are superior than philosophy in this regard, and why? Also, I think the market plays more into what people need than the state does.

 

[Shai Gar]

depends on what state, england and canada are pretty good at providing what the state needs