Freethought & Rationalism Archive

lpetrich · 01-11-2003, 01:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Lone Ranger

"How can you have order in a state without religion? For, when one man is dying of hunger near another who is ill of surfeit, he cannot resign himself to this difference unless there is an authority which declares 'God wills it thus.' Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet."
-- Napoleon Bonaparte

Where is Napoleon supposed to have said that?

This seems like the Plato/Machiavelli view that the religion business is desirable as the Opium of the People.

The Lone Ranger · 01-11-2003, 06:50 PM

Hmm . . . I did some searching, and while the Napoleon quote is very well-known indeed, and I've seen it cited umpteen times, I haven't been able to find the original source. While the quote would certainly seem to reflect Napoleon's views on religion, given his history with the Catholic Church, it may well be that the quotation is an invention.

Positive Atheism, for example, lists the quote, but claims that the source is unknown.

Given that no one seems to know the original source, I'd say that there's ample reason to doubt its authenticity.

Cheers,

Michael

Thieving Magpie · 01-11-2003, 07:10 PM

Cipher Girl.. you diabolical GENIUS!!

lpetrich · 01-11-2003, 07:29 PM

Here's the Plato connection: he describes his idea of an ideal society in his dialogue Republic, complete with details of its official ideology. His society's sacred books were to be banned, because they contain lots of bad examples, such as heroes lamenting and gods laughing. In their place will be a "royal lie", which "demonstrates" that that society's philosopher-rulers are the ones naturally fit to rule.

The view that some fake religion can be useful for making the masses virtuous was held not only by Plato, but by Strabo, Polybius, and others.

Fast-forwarding 15 centuries to the Renaissance, we find political theorist Niccolo Machiavelli, best-known for his how-to-play-to-win treatise on politics, The Prince. In his other great treatise, the Discourses, he expressed the view that religion is useful as a social cement, and praised the Roman authorities of 15 centuries earlier for pretending to believe in auguries (official divinations) and punishing those who disrespected them.

These days, such opinions are not expressed with such straightforward honesty, but are instead associated with dogmatic agnosticism about which religion is really true.

seebs · 01-11-2003, 08:44 PM

I have long suspected that the _Republic_ was a subtle joke.

seebs · 01-11-2003, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cipher Girl
I've always thought how convenient it is that when someone religious wants something then it's also what their deity wants. Interesting isn't it?

Man, I have to sign up for one of these. I want it to be the case that I have a lot more of those magnetic toys I was playing with. If God wanted this too, I would be rolling in magnets.

Thieving Magpie · 01-12-2003, 10:12 AM

I personally think that the Republic is a great work, on the other hand.

People care little if they break laws made by men, but religious people would care deeply if they broke a law made by God(s).

If you can make a populous religious (somehow) and impose religion upon them then I would think they would be far easier to control, and - depending on the type of regime - exploit.

This should not be a difficult thing for Christians to understand.

Amish communities are like small countries governed by the percieved will of God, and even ancient Israel had no king for a long time, preferring instead to have relative anarchy, and the occasional Judge. It was only when the Israelites asked God for a king that they got one, and pardon my french, but they were propa-fucked because of it, according to the Bible.

If someone does not like a law of their secular democratic country, they often feel that they can break it, merely because they do not personally believe in it. Deities like the Christian God, on the other hand, tell people that there are thing that they ought to be doing, whether they like it or not, simply because they are the right things to do. I do think a false religion (and by that I mean a religion created by man specifically for this purpose) would have to be set up if someone wanted to create a modern theocratic state, as one might guess Plato was referring to, but none the less, the possibility is there.

Thieving Magpie · 01-12-2003, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by seebs
Man, I have to sign up for one of these. I want it to be the case that I have a lot more of those magnetic toys I was playing with. If God wanted this too, I would be rolling in magnets.

I think she was talking more ideologically, than materially. I could be terribly wrong though. Horribly, horribly wrong.

-RRH- · 01-12-2003, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Thieving Magpie
I think she was talking more ideologically, than materially. I could be terribly wrong though. Horribly, horribly wrong.

Seebs and all can pursue this further over here:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...threadid=43139

yelyos · 01-12-2003, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Thieving Magpie
I do think a false religion (and by that I mean a religion created by man specifically for this purpose) would have to be set up if someone wanted to create a modern theocratic state, as one might guess Plato was referring to, but none the less, the possibility is there.

I think that the difference between cults and religions is that in a cult, the creator of the religion is still alive and using it to justify their followers, while a religion is a cult with powers of interpretation transferred from the leaders to the individual believers.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-11-2003, 06:50 PM	#22
The Lone Ranger Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Eastern U.S. Posts: 1,230	Hmm . . . I did some searching, and while the Napoleon quote is very well-known indeed, and I've seen it cited umpteen times, I haven't been able to find the original source. While the quote would certainly seem to reflect Napoleon's views on religion, given his history with the Catholic Church, it may well be that the quotation is an invention. Positive Atheism, for example, lists the quote, but claims that the source is unknown. Given that no one seems to know the original source, I'd say that there's ample reason to doubt its authenticity. Cheers, Michael

01-11-2003, 07:10 PM	#23
Thieving Magpie Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 253	Cipher Girl.. you diabolical GENIUS!!

01-11-2003, 07:29 PM	#24
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	Here's the Plato connection: he describes his idea of an ideal society in his dialogue Republic, complete with details of its official ideology. His society's sacred books were to be banned, because they contain lots of bad examples, such as heroes lamenting and gods laughing. In their place will be a "royal lie", which "demonstrates" that that society's philosopher-rulers are the ones naturally fit to rule. The view that some fake religion can be useful for making the masses virtuous was held not only by Plato, but by Strabo, Polybius, and others. Fast-forwarding 15 centuries to the Renaissance, we find political theorist Niccolo Machiavelli, best-known for his how-to-play-to-win treatise on politics, The Prince. In his other great treatise, the Discourses, he expressed the view that religion is useful as a social cement, and praised the Roman authorities of 15 centuries earlier for pretending to believe in auguries (official divinations) and punishing those who disrespected them. These days, such opinions are not expressed with such straightforward honesty, but are instead associated with dogmatic agnosticism about which religion is really true.

01-11-2003, 08:44 PM	#25
seebs Contributor Join Date: May 2002 Location: Saint Paul, MN Posts: 24,524	I have long suspected that the _Republic_ was a subtle joke.

01-12-2003, 10:12 AM	#27
Thieving Magpie Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 253	I personally think that the Republic is a great work, on the other hand. People care little if they break laws made by men, but religious people would care deeply if they broke a law made by God(s). If you can make a populous religious (somehow) and impose religion upon them then I would think they would be far easier to control, and - depending on the type of regime - exploit. This should not be a difficult thing for Christians to understand. Amish communities are like small countries governed by the percieved will of God, and even ancient Israel had no king for a long time, preferring instead to have relative anarchy, and the occasional Judge. It was only when the Israelites asked God for a king that they got one, and pardon my french, but they were propa-fucked because of it, according to the Bible. If someone does not like a law of their secular democratic country, they often feel that they can break it, merely because they do not personally believe in it. Deities like the Christian God, on the other hand, tell people that there are thing that they ought to be doing, whether they like it or not, simply because they are the right things to do. I do think a false religion (and by that I mean a religion created by man specifically for this purpose) would have to be set up if someone wanted to create a modern theocratic state, as one might guess Plato was referring to, but none the less, the possibility is there.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.