quote
For my next paper I'm supposed to chose a paragraph or two and delve into its meaning.
I may or may not choose this passage, so if not, I'd like to post it here.
It's from a guy named Jerome Barkow, who wrote a chapter entitled "The Elastic Between Genes and Culture".
Because children actively engage in cognitive mapping of physical and social reality, they are likely to be especially vulnerable to such manipulation of cultural information in the interests of others. If this reasoning is accurate, then we would expect children to be readily persuaded, for example, to enlist in "holy wars" and "children's crusades" that, in fact, are more in the interests of an older elite than their own.
Not just secular but much of religious ideology, as well, it has been argued, represents manipulative misinformation disseminated by those whose fitness interests are thereby served. Christianity is not the only Nietzchean "slave religion": any belief system that teaches acceptance and forebearance in order to achieve supernatural reward after death may be in effect supporting existing inequalities.
I'm sure you could substitute "war on terror" for "holy war", as in modern times there has been a shift from religiously-based motives to those that are more patriotic-based.
Either way they're still both ideologies founded on manipulation of the masses by inciting the instinctual need to belong to a group.
The unfortunate part in this case, is that the group is run by a self-serving individual who only looks to promote their own best interest at the expense of their "followers".
This is why I can't understand how people can't see the link to religion and political gain.
Political standpoints like Nazism can captivate it's people just as easily as any given religion.
The cleverness of religion however, is that it seems mandated by some unknown force, whereas political agendas are noticably man-made.
OF COURSE there will be more people "believing" in a leader if that leader can assure its people that the rules weren't made up; they were already established and being the leader simply implies upholdin these rules.
Why has their never been an openly-atheist President?
(The religiously affiliated) People won't want to believe in their power.
I may or may not choose this passage, so if not, I'd like to post it here.
It's from a guy named Jerome Barkow, who wrote a chapter entitled "The Elastic Between Genes and Culture".
Because children actively engage in cognitive mapping of physical and social reality, they are likely to be especially vulnerable to such manipulation of cultural information in the interests of others. If this reasoning is accurate, then we would expect children to be readily persuaded, for example, to enlist in "holy wars" and "children's crusades" that, in fact, are more in the interests of an older elite than their own.
Not just secular but much of religious ideology, as well, it has been argued, represents manipulative misinformation disseminated by those whose fitness interests are thereby served. Christianity is not the only Nietzchean "slave religion": any belief system that teaches acceptance and forebearance in order to achieve supernatural reward after death may be in effect supporting existing inequalities.
I'm sure you could substitute "war on terror" for "holy war", as in modern times there has been a shift from religiously-based motives to those that are more patriotic-based.
Either way they're still both ideologies founded on manipulation of the masses by inciting the instinctual need to belong to a group.
The unfortunate part in this case, is that the group is run by a self-serving individual who only looks to promote their own best interest at the expense of their "followers".
This is why I can't understand how people can't see the link to religion and political gain.
Political standpoints like Nazism can captivate it's people just as easily as any given religion.
The cleverness of religion however, is that it seems mandated by some unknown force, whereas political agendas are noticably man-made.
OF COURSE there will be more people "believing" in a leader if that leader can assure its people that the rules weren't made up; they were already established and being the leader simply implies upholdin these rules.
Why has their never been an openly-atheist President?
(The religiously affiliated) People won't want to believe in their power.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home