Huge list of great quotes about establisment

[J’raxis 270145]

Organised religion, the church, and the belief that the Invisible Man in the Sky owns you, your soul and your life isn't 'establishment'? I'd say the description is pretty honest.

It is the devoted single-mindedness to the notion that faith and 'god-belief' are the root of our problems that I find disturbing. 

If you look at history, you'll see that the rise of organized faith and the State go hand-in-hand. The earliest states were predicated upon their god-beliefs; the high priest and the king were one and the same, and the beliefs was used to justify his power.

The twin altars of science and reason have become an 'establishment' in their own right, claiming to have - or rather to be - the solution to these problems.

This is true, but doesn't refute the above; in fact, it augments it. Blind faith in the authority of science and the proclamations of experts (i.e., the high priests of science) is just as bad as blind faith in the authority of a nonexistent diety. See, it's that blind, trusting faith in authority that is the root of many of our problems.

[J’raxis 270145]

Secular humanism? Well if you want there to be less government you should be encouraging religious entities since charity is their role, or should be. (Not that the UUs follow this)

Secular humanism is just another tool of the leftists.

You don't have be religious to see that it is destructively pro-statist.

I tend to think of all organized religions as being the tools of someone seeking power. Either they were outright invented by the power-hungry, or they were quickly taken over by such people and turned to their purposes.

[alphaniner]

Organised religion, the church, and the belief that the Invisible Man in the Sky owns you, your soul and your life isn't 'establishment'? I'd say the description is pretty honest.

It is the devoted single-mindedness to the notion that faith and 'god-belief' are the root of our problems that I find disturbing. 

If you look at history, you'll see that the rise of organized faith and the State go hand-in-hand. The earliest states were predicated upon their god-beliefs; the high priest and the king were one and the same, and the beliefs was used to justify his power.

The twin altars of science and reason have become an 'establishment' in their own right, claiming to have - or rather to be - the solution to these problems.

This is true, but doesn't refute the above; in fact, it augments it. Blind faith in the authority of science and the proclamations of experts (i.e., the high priests of science) is just as bad as blind faith in the authority of a nonexistent diety. See, it's that blind, trusting faith in authority that is the root of many of our problems.

I pretty much agree on all accounts.  The problem is, it is all too common for the life and liberty affirming qualities of faith, belief, etc. to be lost in the hubbub.  I have no love for organized religion, but I nevertheless have a great deal of respect for many of its adherents who I have known in my life.  Some of them have been clergy, and I would beat the crap out of anyone who suggested they should be 'strangled with the entrails of [insert contemporary authority figure here].'

[J’raxis 270145]

Organised religion, the church, and the belief that the Invisible Man in the Sky owns you, your soul and your life isn't 'establishment'? I'd say the description is pretty honest.

It is the devoted single-mindedness to the notion that faith and 'god-belief' are the root of our problems that I find disturbing. 

If you look at history, you'll see that the rise of organized faith and the State go hand-in-hand. The earliest states were predicated upon their god-beliefs; the high priest and the king were one and the same, and the beliefs was used to justify his power.

The twin altars of science and reason have become an 'establishment' in their own right, claiming to have - or rather to be - the solution to these problems.

This is true, but doesn't refute the above; in fact, it augments it. Blind faith in the authority of science and the proclamations of experts (i.e., the high priests of science) is just as bad as blind faith in the authority of a nonexistent diety. See, it's that blind, trusting faith in authority that is the root of many of our problems.

I pretty much agree on all accounts.  The problem is, it is all too common for the life and liberty affirming qualities of faith, belief, etc. to be lost in the hubbub.

I think that's because, in practice, such aspects of any given religion are so infrequently displayed, and in general, the people who make the most noise about their religion are the least likely to display such values. The Falwells and Bin Ladens of the world steal the limelight from the the adherents of whom you speak.

Additionally, many of the positive values held by religions are only ostensibly positive—under the surface, they're often nothing more than justifications for controlling people or amassing power to the leaders of the religion. Exaltation of poverty and simple living is a clever way of justifying the establishment's hold on all the wealth and its desire to keep its subjects poor. Sexual mores serve to control the population. Self-denial—not just sexual restrictions here, but also things on diet, creature comforts, and so on—leads to psychological frustration, which leads to zealousness and aggressiveness, which gives the establishment hordes of eager young warriors willing to fight and die for them. Pro-life beliefs are used to control women. A person having learned to be humble and submissive is much less likely to rise up against a tyrant than someone who is prideful and arrogant. And so on.

This isn't to say that anyone who promotes such values is really just engaged in a cynical attempt to control people. Some people genuinely believe in these values. (Ron Paul, for example, seems to me to be someone who genuinely—and consistently, which is rare!—believes in the Christian life ethic.) But again, the few good people are outweighed and drowned out by the bad.

[alphaniner]

Additionally, many of the positive values held by religions are only ostensibly positive—under the surface, they're often nothing more than justifications for controlling people or amassing power to the leaders of the religion. Exaltation of poverty and simple living is a clever way of justifying the establishment's hold on all the wealth and its desire to keep its subjects poor. Sexual mores serve to control the population. Self-denial—not just sexual restrictions here, but also things on diet, creature comforts, and so on—leads to psychological frustration, which leads to zealousness and aggressiveness, which gives the establishment hordes of eager young warriors willing to fight and die for them. Pro-life beliefs are used to control women. A person having learned to be humble and submissive is much less likely to rise up against a tyrant than someone who is prideful and arrogant. And so on.

While I agree that these things are very often - perhaps even more often than not - used as a means of control, I disagree that they are as you say "only ostensibly positive."  Let me put that another way.  Exaltation of poverty and utter self-denial are certainly deleterious beliefs.  In my experience, however, most people just don't ascribe to these extremes.  More often than not, I think an 'appeal to self-control' is misconstrued as promotion of self-denial; and exaltation of poverty is misconstrued from rebuking the exaltation of wealth.  Furthermore, sexual mores are in my opinion far more positive - both to the individual and to society at large - than sexual abandon.  And an appreciation for the 'simple things' in life is - again in my opinion - an essential trait for a well-adjusted human being.  I'm not even gonna touch the pro-life bit, because nothing good could come from discussing it.

This isn't to say that anyone who promotes such values is really just engaged in a cynical attempt to control people. Some people genuinely believe in these values. (Ron Paul, for example, seems to me to be someone who genuinely—and consistently, which is rare!—believes in the Christian life ethic.) But again, the few good people are outweighed and drowned out by the bad.

Those in power aside, my experience leads me to the opposite conclusion.  Maybe I'm naive or simple-minded, but I think the 'bad' are far outweighed by the 'good' (or, at least, the... 'morally mediocre').  The latter are certainly often drowned out, however, I think this is more due to a few key errors in judgment than an overall 'badness.'  And even among those in power and seeking power, that very power is usually their first and only concern.  Everything and everyone they touch are tools - means to an end - and should not be considered sullied merely due to their contact.

[CNHT]

In the US we are supposed to have freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM it. So long as the government doesn't make any formal religion. However, the state seems to want to be your religion more and more. We don't hear about it but religion is *usually* used for giving people hope, for the good. We only hear about the bad, such as in the case with Muslims

Just look at Dr Paul. Two of his brothers are ministers, and he is VERY religious, but he never imposes that on anyone personally or in politics. But I'm sure his being a man of faith is what makes him such a man of conscious** as well.

**I think you mean conscience.

Yes, slip of the fingers...I'm so freakin' busy... <sigh>

[J’raxis 270145]

Additionally, many of the positive values held by religions are only ostensibly positive—under the surface, they're often nothing more than justifications for controlling people or amassing power to the leaders of the religion. Exaltation of poverty and simple living is a clever way of justifying the establishment's hold on all the wealth and its desire to keep its subjects poor. Sexual mores serve to control the population. Self-denial—not just sexual restrictions here, but also things on diet, creature comforts, and so on—leads to psychological frustration, which leads to zealousness and aggressiveness, which gives the establishment hordes of eager young warriors willing to fight and die for them. Pro-life beliefs are used to control women. A person having learned to be humble and submissive is much less likely to rise up against a tyrant than someone who is prideful and arrogant. And so on.

While I agree that these things are very often - perhaps even more often than not - used as a means of control, I disagree that they are as you say "only ostensibly positive."  Let me put that another way.  Exaltation of poverty and utter self-denial are certainly deleterious beliefs.  In my experience, however, most people just don't ascribe to these extremes.

That's certainly true. But if you read the actual religious texts that back Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism—and I'm sure there are others; these are just the ones I know off the top of my head—it's the extreme that is in fact pushed by the religion. And it's the extremist forms of these religions that are pushed by the power-seekers, not the moderate versions.

[PattyLee loves dogs]

I am not religious but appreciated "Chaucers Tales" read many years ago, I do not recall very well. I was impressed with the characters described according to their position in the church hierarchy. The lowest position priest embodied the true ideals. The characters became worse and more corrupt as they ascended in the church authority. The point was not to revile the ideal of the church but instead to revile the authority.

The vestige of appreciation I have for a church has to do with that spirit expressed by the lowliest, the individual farthest away from authority.

[Lloyd Danforth]

...aspiring to work his way up the ranks.

[Mike Barskey]

Here's a list of my favorite quotes: http://mike.barskey.net/Mike_Barskey/Quotes.html