I am dying and ****** hate it

[John Reimer]

Hello BCS,

> Reply to Christopher,
> 
>> I sympathize with your dislike of proselytizing. If someone wants
>> to convert, they probably know where to get more information
>> on how to do so.
> I agree that trying to *force* religion on anyone is wrong. However,
> inviting someone to explore it (and that's all I saw) is not.
> 

Perhaps the OP is getting a real kick out of this discussion already. ;-)

Here's my "little" analysis of the situation.  It's full of speculation and 
philosophizing and no proselytizing! ;)  Coming from me, most of you know 
what to expect, so take it or leave it.  I tried to be as circumspect as 
possible. :)

The OP was doing one of three things:

(1) was drunk and posted to the newsgroup in an unhappy state (Not a joke! 
This could happen)
(2) was an alias hijacker hoping to incite debate for "no good reason" but 
to watch some fireworks
(3) was trully seeking help

IF and only IF (3) was the case, this plea for help, in my estimation, was 
warranted a response from whomever (even at the risk of looking silly if 
it were spam), and I believe Marcin did it in a very non-intrusive and circumspect 
manner.  In fact, no one seemed to notice that this was an opportunity for 
Marcin to deeply empathize his own hurt with another.  I consider that quite 
insensitive.  Even more so, given that there have been so many incidences 
of filthy innuendo and swearing that goes without comment here, it seems 
inconsistant that one is jumped on as soon as he tries to encourage another 
in a way that has made sense to him.  I wish I could quote previous posters 
that said something like "if you don't like, don't read it."  This is not 
a response I agree with, but I think it would be fair to turn that statement 
back on such a poster. :)

Now given that, the fact that a few here find it distasteful to respond in 
any manner nebulously referred to as "religious" even if the help is called 
for, I asume the correct response in most cases is to respond privately if 
that is possible.  Since, in many cases, email addresses are not valid in 
this newsgroup, then a simple post as above seems practical.  

There will always be elements that are offended by anything said because 
our cultural climate has been primed to incite social wariness between what 
is typically segregated into "secular" and the "religious".  Frankly, our 
days are sorrily riddled with examples of individuals using religion for 
a vehicle for control tactics on people, probably since it's one of the easiest 
ways to capture a mass mindset; so I understand the precident for that line 
of thinking.  But I submit that this is /not/ necessarily because of the 
content of religion (although for some religions, it is very much so), but 
because, if a certain number of people tend to think a certain way, it is 
easiest for a controlling element to adopt and maneuver based on current 
mindsets rather than to change minds; this really should be referred to as 
a sort of mass hijacking where people can be maneuvered /a little/ from there 
original ideas to believe the controlling elements extensions to it.  

I propose that the modern secular world is just as subject to this psychological 
influence and exercises it just a readily through media, education systems 
and politics.  I cry foul when I hear it being leveled singularly on the 
religious institution.  Use of such an argument is control tactic in itself 
because it is an argument of convenience and rhetoric with no rigourous continuity. 
 Control is effectively abused within whichever ideologies are culturally 
significant for the time.  This is the nature of the human mind, and we are 
all, to different degrees, susceptible to it.  More independent minded individuals 
are often spurned and rejected from social structures.  While this "rejection" 
may seem like a tendancy of "controlling" religions only, nothing could be 
further from the truth (I would call that a popular myth).  You will see 
it in scientific communities, academic systems, and politics... where the 
non-conformists are pushed out, derided, rejected for various forms of "thinking" 
differently.  Some are pushed out for valid reasons, others are pushed out 
because they refuse to follow the popular vote or speak out against /popular/ 
thought processes (eg in scientific communities).  

Related question: is the idea of democracy, where the majority is always 
"right", a valid system of determining law or leadership?  And the corollary: 
Does democracy really exist when control elements such as the media have 
unprecidented influence on the mass of people or where significant funding 
is the basis of political visibility?  Does the democratic process closely 
parallel the laws of logic in terms of validity of a majority's vote?  Disclaimer: 
this question should not to be taken as an opinion for or against democracy. 
 It is just a musing on the ultimate effecacy of it.

Now, I do not deny that their are huge abuses of control in religion, nor 
will I support such abuse of control structures... but this necessarily depends 
on the definition of such a "control" structure because many religions exercise 
no more control than your average secular, academic, scientific, or political 
community, including all relevant psychological tactics such as peer pressure 
and social stereotyping and rejection.  Some sort of "control" structure 
will always be part of every system -- we see it in every aspect of life, 
government, science, and society.  You can't escape it.  Students wouldn't 
get their degrees without it. On the lower level, we wouldn't have operating 
systems, compilers, word processors, scientific machinations, personnel management, 
or anything without a control structure.  The same will apply to the application 
of worldviews and society.

Since this is probably obvious to most people, I think the main accusation 
against any attempt to share a worldview with another is the risk of psychological 
intimidation or abuse; this is, I believe, the implied meaning of Gregor's 
accusation.  This will always be a matter for debate when the topic of worldviews 
and morality/ethics comes into play, where perhaps the secularist will accuse 
the "religious" element of using physcological intimidation as a /motive/ 
for conversion (may be true in situations, but is a dangerous hasty generalization 
for all situations), while the "religious" element throws back the accusation 
by saying the secularist intimidates by derision and deprecation of any that 
adopt the "religious" element.  While some control elements will indeed abuse 
religion this way, I want to emphasize that this is not an intrinsic part 
of the Christian faith itself, and thus to accuse one of such motivation 
is implicitly bigotted since the person appeals only to his own experience 
and completely disregards an objective observation of a given situation. 
 We're all clouded with such tendancies, and it should be in everybody's 
interest to keep as clear-headed as possible in such situations.  I try hard 
to do so myself.

And thus any accusation based only on bias against a worldview is necessarily 
invalid and disingenuous, although I do recognize the major precident for 
the train of thought that thinks this way.

In summary, I mainly take issue to those who make hasty generalizations about 
the relationship of religion and psychological control on society... since 
you can find just as many "control tactics" in different "so-called" secular 
and philosophical systems, politics, and bodies.  There is indeed huge abuse 
in the area of religion and control, but it's irrational to see it reduced 
souly as a biproduct of it when it really exists across all worldview barriers 
in alarming proportions; if this is true, then it most certainly isn't a 
bi-product of the idea of religion; it is an element intrinsic to the human 
condition.  The psychology of it is everywhere, and the abuse of it repeats 
itself over and over throughout history.  


>> mentioning religion in a forum such as this is an
>> invitation for a flame war
> Oddly, here it doesn't tend to become a flame war, just one of The
> Epic OT Debates. (requiter plug for a digitalmars.ot NG)
> 

LOL! ... I tend to agree with that last statement.  A flame strikes me as 
name-calling fest. I'm hoping there will be less and less of it here whatever 
the discussion.

-JJR