[MD] Sociability Re-examined

[david]

Horse to JC:

No it's not - religion is a social pattern, not the Social level. Don't be silly!



Arlo to Horse:

Of course its a very sophomoric idea. And here's the context behind it. Bo (who apparently still monitors MD) sent me an email that read, in part, "About "religion" as the social definition is something John has from me, but he omitted my reservations and qualifications." So now you know where this is originating. Whatever other deductions you make from this are up to you.



dmb says:

Yes, a very sophomoric idea and a conspicuously self-serving idea too. It's not just a gross distortion to equate religion with the social level, it's not even true that all religion is social. The MOQ is a religion is some sense and yet it is intellectual. The MOQ does not oppose religion per se but rather opposes the assertion of social level values (from social level religions) over intellectual values. And of course this is a real-world problem, as in the case where creationism is taught in science classes along side of instead of the theory of evolution or the cases where our rights are subverted or distorted by traditional forms of bigotry and oppression. I mean, traditional religions are full of super creepy nonsense about how to treat slaves, how to beat your children, and how to destroy those other guys who don't worship the right God. Traditional religion is morally outrageous, cruel, hateful and childish. John wants us to think that this stomach-turning creepiness is normal, natural and good. I find it impossible to respect such views, especially as we sit here in the wake of the latest Islamic beheading and the lethal bigotry of our police forces. This kind of ignorance has to be eradicated or we are totally fucked.