From: Charles Hixson (charleshixsn@earthlink.net)
Date: Sat Aug 31 2002 - 10:55:42 MDT
On Friday 30 August 2002 22:34, Michael Wiik wrote:
> ...
> The idea that moral behavior is not dependent on religion is one I fully
> agree with and support. However, I seem to feel the need for moral
>...
> -Mike
I would put it more strongly. Religions have a moral code, so they ostensibly
apply to all. The code, however, has, in every case that I've looked at,
been edited to support the more authoritarian elements of the culture. This
makes sense, in that the centers of power only support those parts of the
culture that support them, and that the religions that I looked at were those
that had survived and become powerful. .
I should make a retraction here. What I said wasn't strictly true. I've
looked at lots of religions that didn't support the authoritarian elements
... to start with. Over time, however, they drifted into such a mode, even
if they had to reinvent themselves, as when the RDNA* converted into the
ADL**... a complete change of name, charter, method of operations, order of
worship... but the top layer of the clergy shifted over, and so did many of
the congregation. The RDNA had a charter designed to prevent the
accumulation of centralized power. The ADL had a charter designed to
accumulate power to those who had been members of it for a long time. The
ADL seems to be growing, and the RDNA has nearly disappeared.
This example is a kind of sidelight... a part of the reason for the conversion
is that many of the traditions of the RDNA were ... not necessarily approved
of by the more conservative elements of society (though not unusual, either).
The switch to the ADL erased those traditions. A few years later the former
clergy engaged in a bit of puritanical drumbeating. Probably to ensure the
erasure, at least publically. So the moral code official to the religion
visibly changed in a way designed to support the authoritarian power
structure. The leadership may or may not have really supported the change,
but they responded to external pressures, and they *did* change it. I've
never observed a case where the leadership of a group changed the codes of
that group in a less authoritarian direction. (Checkable counter examples
would be welcome!)
When I look over the history of this group, I don't see anything that
conflicts with my general observations of how people and groups behave, so I
suspect that the same general process operates in all religions, at least
unless they, themselves, become the dominant power center, and possibly even
then. Doctrine didn't become less ridgid in Europe when the Catholic Church
[trans. = Universal Assembly?] achieved it's dominance over Europe. In fact
the most absurdly ridgid doctrines were promulgated during the final part of
it's stamping out of rival theologies. (Stamping out = the rack, they pyre,
the iron maiden, and the sword, etc.) Yes, there was a lot more going on
than just the religious battles. And the inquisition was mainly individuals
about using the power of the church to steal wealth from the less powerfully
connected (the King of France used to take ... was it half? ... of the
property confiscated by the inquisition).
*RDNA = Reformed Druids of North America
**ADL = A Druid Fellowship (the actual name is in Irish Gaelic)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:35 MST