Nevermind. Besides the jokes, turns out I do have something more serious/constructive/new to add. (Although, it should be pointed out for anyone who didn't bother tracing its
origin that
number 4 above is rather serious/constructive/new.)
Relating somewhat to the last two posts by Jonathan and sinewav, I just happened to run across this column this evening:
10 Ways to Make Sure the Atheist Movement Is Not Just for the Wealthy. Be sure to read all the embedded links, such as the one right at the beginning that leads to
this fantastic piece, which itself is full of great links—much of which related to what you those previous two comments.
Jonathan wrote:Another approach is to work on factors that cause religiosity, such as living conditions. If you improve those, there are fewer reasons to cling to gods....
Yes! In fact, the actual meaning of the passage from Marx, seemingly universally misquoted and misconstrued as "religion is the opiate of the masses"—a phrasing and meaning never actually written—its original context and wording is as follows:
"But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man—state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. ...
Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is an opium for the sufferer/people. ... To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. ... Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that men and women shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that they shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower."
sinewav wrote:Yes, as evidenced by the idiotic United States.... Bunch of monkeys with handguns is what they are, even the elected leaders.
America isn't really as religious, and those who are religious aren't as fundamentalist, as you think, or as others (especially Western Europeans) would like to believe it is. About 80% self-identify as religious, which can mean all degree and manner of things, and it's probably a good bit less. Only about 50% are Protestant, and only about a third self-describe as conservative or evangelical, and it's probably fewer. And even they aren't filling the pews. It's still pretty religious, but not as religious as many make it out to be. Hitch noted so on several occasions. It just depends on what indicators you look at; some may lead you to believe it's overrun with fundies, while others point to much of that being an illusion. And one of the main reasons it comes off as more religious than it really is is the power structure that consolidates a disproportionate amount of right-wing Christian ideology. The problem isn't as much with the general population (not that there isn't a problem there as well) as much as it is with the power structure. You phrased it as "even" the elected leaders, when really it's
especially the "elected leaders" whom are neither legitimately elected nor leaders.
