Display:
Now you're talking some sense here.  

However, you're still assuming, a priori, that the Church is the principal and not the agent in this story.  Your narrative puts the Church in the role of being the one trying to manipulate repression and psychological conflicts for the ends of power, when it seems just as likely that the Church is merely the tool of other political actors toward that end.  In fact, the main scholarship of the left on this topic, in the works of people such as Foucault and Hannah Arendt among others, would put the church in the role of victim/tool of totalitarian tendencies of the modern capitalist, law-based state toward the ends you describe.

by santiago on Fri Mar 19th, 2010 at 03:05:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Once again, religion's origin is in authoritization of group leadership.

With your rhetorical skills, you can derive why you're wrong about the entire direction of your objections.

Align culture with our nature.

by ormondotvos (ormond no spam lmi net no spam) on Sat Mar 20th, 2010 at 02:11:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think most serious thinkers on the topic would hold that religion ceased to provide that social function at about the time of Renaissance, when probably not just co-incidentally, the capitalist revolution in European affairs was also starting to take off. (When merchants, travelers, mercenaries, pirates, and other formerly estranged or outcast people began to have the resources to contest power with kings, soldiers, and priests.) Since capitalism, the church has instead played its other historical role -- social iconoclast. Instead of authorizing group leadership, a positive act of power, it's role within modernity is to challenge group leadership, or destroy it, a negative act of power.
by santiago on Tue Apr 6th, 2010 at 09:34:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series