.

Dear George,

.

You wrote:

"Lenin did that but he could not convince the inhabitants that their new house was more livable than the one he knocked down, not to mention the other house in the neighbourhood that underwent only gradual, and often incomplete, reparations."

You mention Lenin but you could also have mentioned Castro and Allende and why not Mao, though it could be argued that the "house" of Mao is still being refurbished and might possibly be worth considering as a long term investment.

In relation to the "west wing" of the world establishment, you observe:

"Whether in this demolition act the religious fundamentalists are a reaction to militant atheists or vice versa is here a chicken-and-egg question."

It seems to me there is more in the hen house than just chickens and eggs.

Present day fundamentalist are not so much reacting to atheists as they are to "western imperialism" (Al-Qaida) and all other religions as well as non-fundamentalist practitioners of their own faith.

.

Dear Banjo,

I agree that there are many things I could have mentioned but did not. I know Lenin‘s teachings about changing the whole (Western) world. I do not know of Castro’s or Allende’s comparable ambitions. And without Lenin there would probably be no Mao or Stalin, who - as we were told at school - stood on Lenin’s shoulders. (Hence the joke: when Stalin died he came to hell and was submersed in a boiling muck up to his hips. When Hitler, who was sunk up to his neck, complained, Lucifer silenced him by saying Stalin was standing on Lenin’s shoulders.)

Fundamentalists within the West (e.g. USA), that I was talking about as demolishing it, are mostly Christians who take the Bible literally and attack those whom they think - rightly or wrongly - that they have to defend it from. And vice versa, militant atheists I had in mind are those who think that they can defend reason and a peaceful coexistence of many opinions and cultures in a secular society by attacking Christianity as such, (or Islam as such although, here they are often outdone by Christian fundamentalists) or even religion as such, thus a priori alienating many, mostly peaceful and decent, members of the society.

My impression was that in the last decade or two both these extreme camps within traditional West have grown in numbers, and that that they feed on each other, irrespective of how one sees the chicken-and-egg dilemma.

Dear George,
I've referred above to "established and pseudo established" religions as being involved in symbiotic relations, forming part of what Althusser called "Ideological State Apparatuses". I'm not referring to ideological upstarts; I gave the Amish as example of a benign religion apropos the state. But all religions are intent on winning hearts and minds within a designated spectrum, no? Of course they defend their ambition as God’s work, but I’m sceptical. Christianity was of course once a mere contender itself, in imperial Rome, eventually forming an international and utterly corrupt hegemony, only compromised (actually bifurcated) with the popularising Reformation, both strains going on to enforce compliance and invade and colonise foreign cultures in attempts to save (enslave) the world with their ideology, no? When it can no longer rule in its own right, religion is content in opposition, complement to the prevailing power structure. We see it now with the Pope in Britain; notice he doesn’t criticise the system, which is busy making every debauchery profitable. Notice he doesn’t mind Italian government being affiliated with the Mafia (God-fearing Catholics after all). No, he criticises those who refuse to swallow the antidote, the absolution on offer, as well as the diagonal nod, and all the other pork-barrelling, eternal life etc. Atheism is anathema to the church, just as anarchy is to government. But Catholicism has no such temporal concerns, does it? It’s in the business of saving souls and is genuinely troubled at the spectacle of so many doomed atheists. The atheists btw are a great decoy away from the church’s institutional paedophilia (and other sins), and governments’ perpetual economic crises. Government and church are as thick as thieves (so make the atheists scapegoats!) and if anyone dares to criticise this marriage made in heaven, invoke Stalin, Mau and co as their comrades. I’ve had quite enough of that tactic on OLO. The most valuable thing about Marx is his compelling criticism of capitalism (indeed, he had no real vision for post-capitalism, only an ideal). But capitalism is beyond reproach; so long as you do penance and support the church!

Dear Squeers,

Your embittered paragraph, where you focus on Christianity and the Pope, made more sense to me than the one I referred to as a tangle.

You can criticise the Church‘s role in HISTORY but you have to keep in mind the historical context, when nobody, neither the Church nor its contemporary adversaries had the luxury of hindsight that we all enjoy today. And you can criticise the PRESENT state of Christianity, in particular the Pope.

In both cases there are arguments that will support your criticism, as well as those that will contradict you. However, you have to KEEP these two cases, two kinds of criticism, APART.

On the side of history I do not want to contradict you, yes the Church was also after “secular”, political power, and used it to spread and maintain its “hold over souls”. However, I do not know of a present-day country (except for Vatican) where Catholicism is THE state religion (although in some countries Christian churches still enjoy certain privileges, apparently on their way out, as remnants from the past).

>>But all religions are intent on winning hearts and minds within a designated spectrum, no?<<
So are ideologies, political parties, Dawkins or anybody who is “proselytizing“ a point of view with or without political ambitions.

>>When it can no longer rule in its own right, religion is content in opposition, complement to the prevailing power structure.<<
What else would you suggest they should do within a democratic system except to be “content in opposition”? Work against the democratic system in support of a totalitarian alternative? (Christianity, especially Catholics, within Communist countries certainly did not “complement the prevailing power structure“.) (ctd)

(ctd)
>> the Pope in Britain; notice he doesn’t criticise the system <<
Would you really think he, as an official guest of the UK, should have criticised the system of those who invited him? Are you familiar with Benedict’s encyclical “Caritas in Veritate” (see e.g. the comment http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2009/July/Popes-Remarks-on-Economy-Advocate-Socialism/) or “Centesimus Annus“ of his predecessor?

>>he doesn’t mind Italian government being affiliated with the Mafia<<
How do you know? Do you have a quote, where he says he does not mind?

Atheism, as some on this OLO argue, is simply “lack of belief”. So is it so surprising that somebody who sees himself as a defender of such “belief“ will reason and warn against this lack? There are many other fields of human enquiry providing insights, the lack of which could be argued to be detrimental to the proper functioning of a society, even if those arguments are not universally persuasive.

Dear George,
I'm all for keeping matters in context; I believe others are far more guilty of not doing so than I am. However, I'm talking about the trans-historical influence of the church.
<I do not know of a present-day country (except for Vatican) where Catholicism is THE state religion (although in some countries Christian churches still enjoy certain privileges, apparently on their way out, as remnants from the past)>
There are plenty of countries where Catholicism (the "universal" church, a travelling road-show) and other "Great" religions are "pseudo-established"; where no matter what the break-up of believer/unbeliever, the institution is ideologically and ethically influential. Though I certainly concede your point that: <So are ideologies, political parties, Dawkins or anybody who is “proselytizing“ a point of view with or without political ambitions.> (indeed I also condemn scientism above). Yet this in fact validates my argument; all are contesting the ideological ground WITHIN a rotten system. How is the decadent Catholic church representative, now or ever, of the actually radical teachings of Jesus?
The Pope should be criticising the system that all countries are forced to bow to: capitalism, a system of barbarous exploitation, destructiveness and disparities that shouldn't be uttered in the same breath with "democracy".
The Pope, and Dawkins, should be arguing for sustainable, equitable, inclusive and modest societies dedicated to intelligent, rich and fulfilling lives, rather than vicious devotion to the universal profit motive, and the ideal of maximal wealth--which is the real dispensation we all live under. By challenging ethical values within a decadent culture he is, in effect, shoring it up, selling snake oil; the church's symbiotic role.