Arrowman

Moon, I find your thesis confusing and lacking any credible basis.

To say that churches act as intermediary organisations to provide virtually "the only real way that people can organize and have real political power" is a stretch, to say the least.

For one thing, you ignore the presence of a wide range of organisations in which people can participate for common political purposes - such as veterans' associations, consumer organisations, animal welfare and conservation organisations, - and yes, unions - etc, etc, etc - many of which have a direct advocacy and political element, and most of which could expect more coherence in the political views of their members (at least on a given subject) than any church.

Still, I won't expect clear thinking from someone who thinks that unions have been "stripped of their power" as a result of "a relentless class war waged by business elites."

moon

It is true that such organizations exist. However, with the exception of unions, these groups are organized around a cause, and do not exist to provide a place where people can get together to interact on a human level and offer mutual aid and support. I think this is a very important part of human existence, and it is something that is only really offered by churches in our society.

Obviously, I would favor the growth of more such organizations, and for a society in which people interact on a more authentic level, instead of as consumers and producers.
Well, probably you haven't heard such ideas very often. These ideas lie outside of the bounds of acceptable debate in our mass media infected culture. Thus, it is probably quite shocking to hear.

I would propose, though, that you consider the possibility, and examine the basis for such statements, before dismissing the person saying it.

Triple Six

Moon

Your first sentence is the one causing the controversy and is rightly (IMO) attracting scorn. I'm not suggesting that it is every atheists duty to actively bring about the downfall of the church (though it would be an ideal course ) but supporting them is a definite no-no. Any help given to the churches will only perpetuate them and stifle the many alternatives that have been suggested on these boards.

Indifference is OK, live and let live, but helping opponents is never a good idea.

Arrowman

Moon said: It is true that such organizations [like veterans' associations etc] exist. However, with the exception of unions, these groups are organized around a cause, and do not exist to provide a place where people can get together to interact on a human level and offer mutual aid and support.

With respect, I think that is a very naïve, or perhaps nostalgic, view of unions. In my experience, modern unions are highly political organisations with a very strong political or ideological bias, coming more from the leadership than from the members. It is true that unions originated as pure "protect the workers" organisations with a strong focus on "mutual aid and support" - and that persists today - but they have evolved beyond that. I certainly do not think you can reasonably claim the roles of unions and churches are at all similar.

Of course, other organisations like the ones I mentioned, are organised around a cause (there are also the service clubs like Rotary whose only "cause" is the mutual social support of the members combined with community service). My point is that they do provide "mutual aid and support" of the kind you say is important (and I agree) to groups of like-minded people. A "cause" may be their primary focus, but they also meet a social need. Everyone should be able to find one or more such groups, cause-based or otherwise, which meet their social "aid and support" needs without having to resort to churches.

Moon said: Obviously, I would favor the growth of more such organizations, and for a society in which people interact on a more authentic level, instead of as consumers and producers.

And so would I, but I don't think the "problem" is anywhere near as grave as you seem to think. Your ideology seems to be leading your thinking, not the facts.

I said: Still, I won't expect clear thinking from someone who thinks that unions have been "stripped of their power" as a result of "a relentless class war waged by business elites."
and Moon said: Well, probably you haven't heard such ideas very often. These ideas lie outside of the bounds of acceptable debate in our mass media infected culture. Thus, it is probably quite shocking to hear. I would propose, though, that you consider the possibility, and examine the basis for such statements, before dismissing the person saying it.

OK, that was a cheap ad hominem shot. I won't deny I meant it but I could have expressed it better.

But speaking of "dismissing people" - what planet do you think I live on? Of course I have "heard such ideas" before. I am reasonably well educated and well read, and frankly I think it is arrogant for someone proposing an ideological view to assume that the objections of another (no matter how badly worded they may have been) are based on ignorance rather than knowledge and reasoned opinion. It is that sort of attitude or assumption that allows the commentators of the Right to use pejorative terms like "elitist" and "intelligensia" when criticising the "chattering classes".

No, I do not find your ideas "shocking" - just outdated and naïve. I do not think they "lie outside the bounds of acceptable debate in our mass media infected culture" - where I live at least, the role of unions and their relationship with business and political leadership, etc, etc are debated often and freely in the public domain - in the mass media and elsewhere. The fact that such debate is not clothed in the "class warfare" rhetoric of the socialist left does not mean it is not happening.

Moon, you and I may disagree ideologically on the nature and role of unions and their history, and on the nature of society, consumers and "business elites" - but my main concern here is to challenge your original assertion that churches play a role in society that is not met by any other groups [save for unions] and they [churches] should therefore be tolerated and even encouraged because we would be 'worse off if they vanished'.

Of course, if all churches disappeared overnight, we might have a problem because millions of people would be overnight without a regular social network of like-minded people, but that's not what we're talking about - gradual decline to zero in churches and attendance would in my opinion be more than adequately compensated by a growth in other, existing networks.

In short, I believe your argument is based far more in ideology than facts - you posit a society and institutions which are as your ideology believes them to be, not as they actually are, and from that you draw erroneous conclusions.

[ February 12, 2002: Message edited by: Arrowman ]</p>

ohwilleke

I agree with moon that churches serve useful social purposes, and would go further to say that atheism will always be a minority ideology of intellectuals, rather than a mass movement widely accepted in society, until we establish institutions for ourselves that meet the human social needs that churches serve.

I'm not convinced that the political purpose of churches is the most important purpose that they serve, but they do serve useful purposes. From a strictly secular view, this is the best explaination for why religion has survived as long as it has.

I also agree with moon that some churches are better than others at promoting a better society, and desirable values.

On the other hand, I also have signficant concerns about "moderates" in the matter of religion. To paraphrase MLK, Jr., the real threat to the black man's civil rights were not the hooded bigots, but the average mild mannered citizen person who quietly agreed with segregation laws. The same reasoning applies to religion. By making parts of the world "majority Christian", the moderates lend aid and comfort to much more dangerous fundamentalist Christians. This is particularly true because the moderates rarely speak forcefully or publically themselves on matters of religion.