Yuyutsu - The fact that churches were involved in such exploitations only means is that those churches have failed in their mission.

Exactly my point, most if not all HAVE failed in their mission. Well to rephrase that, they have failed dismally if one assumes their mission was to promote christianity as per the bible, but they have been extremely successful in creating empires to the glorification of whatever religious franchise and particularly the human leaders thereof. Check out the property holdings of the biggest half-dozen religious franchises and then tell me I'm barking up the wrong tree. Obviously the church of rome is the original and worst offender, with judaism, islam, greek orthodux & church of england in a similar league. The examples I provided earlier ' Thou shalt have no other gods before Me (how about Mary ??), Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image (Hmm, all those statues ??) & Call no man Father (hullo ??) are only three of many that show catholics don't regard even their own Knox bible as authoritative. Furthermore, I understand that as from 2011, the vatican has required civilian employees to have a microchip implanted under the skin of their right hand. If that doesn't send a shiver up your spine then maybe Revelation 13:16 would be enlightening. Furthermore I think you'd find a bit of research on the 'false prophet' enlightening.

In general, most of the other 'franchises' use translations derived from the catholic vulgate, thereby accepting incorrect concepts that first principles researchers abandoned years ago. As for your comment 'Religion is any path which brings us closer to God', I'll agree that religion brings people closer to A god, but not necessarily the same one. For example, it could be argued that the main religions practiced in Australia are footbrawl, thugby, consumerism, politically-correct-ism & probably quite a few more.

to be continued

continued

As cohenite has just noted, islam is a major ideology today, one that ostensibly reveres the same God as christians & jews. Mind you JC clearly didn't exactly agree in John 14:6 with either mobs carryings on. Genesis 16:11-12 (circa 5000 years ago) provides a stark notice about Ismael & his (islamic) descendants so we can hardly say we weren't given plenty of warning about that mob. Another modern example of the utter nonsense spread by one particular 'franchise' is the pentecostal practice of 'speaking in tongues'. Sure there was a real purpose for speaking in tongues in the first century with teachers imparting knowledge to students who spoke a language unknown to their teacher. Thats a totally different event from some lunatic spouting utter drivel !!

Given that the first century examples of christians meeting together entailed a few people in someones lounge, do you think JC would be impressed with the present day zillion dollar edifices to this or that franchise ?? Isn't it more likely He'd say 'why didn't you do a bit for the down & outs rather than spend all that money building fancy castles' ??

Another attempt at the "Nanny State" argument.

"Science and technology has certainly all-but vanquished religious dogma as a political force,"

This is a remarkably daft statement--religious ideologies are still extremely potent forces and far from vanquishment.

In a democratic society the state is us, it's not the enemy, without its protection citizens would be at the mercy of the capitalist and criminal classes, the most pernicious propaganda these days is produced by corporations, not by the government. Gambling, alcohol and smoking are health, not moral issues, why shouldn't the state, as representative of its citizens warn of the dangers inherent in using nicotine and alcohol or gambling. Those corporations whose shareholders profit from selling dangerous products have an appalling record as to informing the public of the dangers. We're in the real world, not the bizarre universe of neo-liberal economics.

The author is really drawing a longbow in his attempts to equate the modern state with the theocracies of the past.

Great article.

All that's happened is that the same irrational beliefs that used to be invested in the church, are now invested in the state.

A classic case is the current dogma that state action is necessary to improve the situation that would otherwise result from supposed catastrophic global warming.

- There's the unfalsifiable belief (both extra hot or extra cold weather, flood or drought, are taken as proof)
- there's belief in an impending cataclysm
- those who critically doubt the reason or evidence for it are "denialists" (heretics) as if they issue were one of *faith* in authority
- there's the time-frame (not near enough to be disproved, but near enough to be worried about)
- the idea that man's moral fault is at the root of the problem ("consumerism")
- the need to repent
- there's the need to practise self-denial for salvation
- the promise of a future paradise in which the economic problems caused by natural scarcity are solved by virtue for a more harmonious and morally superior society ("sustainability")
- there's the reading of birds' gizzards: high priests of orthodox authority (climate experts) reading mysterious signs (computer models) whose true meaning is inscrutable to the common herd
- there's the reverencing of a corporation (the state) as being all-knowing (it knows that the values of all human beings are and should be, now and indefinitely into the future, in the use of depletable resources; and all other resources; it knows what resources should be consumed now or conserved for future humans; it knows what the distribution and abundance of species should be on all continents and time-frames)
- the reverencing of a corporation as morally superior (it has the selflessness and goodness to exercise total power over any and every aspect of human action)
- the reverencing of a corporation as omnipotent (it can fine-tune the weather in 500 years time)
- the holy corporation is charged with rectifying man's error and showing the path to salvation
- and now to cap it all off, we have carbon taxes - the selling of indulgences!

Dear Jardine,

Your comparison is a gem - I hate to add anything after that.

But I must draw the conclusion from those similarities that as both the Church and the state are infested by the exact same plague, that plague must be independent of religion.

Can there be an uninfected Church?
Can there be an uninfected state?

Perhaps the correct question is not "can there be", but "for how long" [can a Church/state remain uninfected].

Dear Praxidice,

I am deeply shocked about that RFID implantation, though all I could read so far is that Vatican employees were issued with a card, not implanted, so far anyway (could this be a measure to prevent Jews from entering the Vatican, as they're not allowed to carry electronic items on the Sabbath?).

<<I'll agree that religion brings people closer to A god>>

You are not seriously suggesting that there's more than one God, are you?

Yes, there are myriads of little-gods (with a small 'g'), but coming closer to one does not count as religion, so that excludes footbrawl, thugby, consumerism, politically-correct-ism, etc.

Otherwise I agree with you, including that JC would be very unimpressed by most of the mob calling on his name.

Dear Mac,

<<In a democratic society the state is us, it's not the enemy, without its protection citizens would be at the mercy of the capitalist and criminal classes,>>

In other words what you say is "the enemy of my enemy must be my friend". According to your logic, if the Comancheros and Rebels bikie gangs are fighting with each other, then one of them must be your friend!

And by the way, Mac, I know myself - and I am not a state, so next time you claim that "the state is us", you better define clearly who these "us" are, excluding myself and probably some others here.

Yuyutsu,

You're begging the question by assuming the state is an enemy, where did I assert that?

Where did I maintain that individuals are states in themselves--only through collective action.

Can you live without the state? If so in what way?

Presumably if threatened by criminals you would call the Police and if by fire, the Fire Brigade, or perhaps you might rely on a private security force, or rely on market forces to solve the problem.