From: Sandy Petersen (sandyp@idgecko.idsoftware.com)
Date: Sat 20 Jan 1996 - 01:23:31 EET
Martin lists evidence that religion is really useful on a group
level, not an individual, evidently paying little or no attention to
what I said, which was "its PRACTITIONERS" consider it useful on an
individual level, and for them, benefits to society are secondary
concerns.
Martin, clearly religion can benefit society, but that's
NOT why individual people obey the religion. I've spent my entire
adult life amongst other frequent church-goers, including much
discussion of religion, and have spent years teaching others about
religion (particularly my own). I think I have a pretty good idea
about why people actually believe in their faiths -- perhaps a
better idea than Marx, who, though far more intelligent than I,
interviewed no one about the nature of their belief, but simply (and
naturally) assumed that his _own_ belief was correct, and then
reasoned from afar about why religion existed (and I don't condemn
dis Marx here -- I respect the man a lot).
Tithing is followed by tithe-payers not for of the good it
does society, but for the good it does_them_ . People obey rules
which benefit society not primarily for _society's_ benefit, but for
their own. Of course religion's function from "society's" viewpoint
is to reinforce societal norms. But, since society, as a collection
of individuals, has no viewpoint of its own, let's move on. My
contention, which I maintain, is that Gloranthans, as well as
terrans, obey religion for the value it provides _them_ and their
lives.
That's all.
>Moreover, most all religions teach how to get along in society,
whether as >mainstreamers or a side branch. The Thugees are the
only counterexample I can >think of
Here are some more counterexamples. (Anyone wishing to try
to refute my counterexamples point by point is invited to do so
offline -- originally I had about eight pages of text here
bolstering what I said below, but then realized that only about two
people would want to read it.)
The Assassins -- originally a Shi'ite terrorist sect
The Shakers, who withdrew from society rather than face it
Other examples of this type of withdrawal are not uncommon -- the
Amish, for instance.
The Mormons were massacred by hundreds in Missouri. This
seems to have been primarily motivated by financial and political
motivations. Later, in Utah, they were oppressed by the government
because of their marital practices.
The Huguenots were viewed as a threat to the state of France.
The Cainites (ancient Christian heresy).
Certain groups of medieval witch-cults. Witchcraft was an
outgrowth of heresy and witches were most prevalent in areas which
also had a high incidence of heretics. It was the "ultimate" heresy,
so to speak. (Of course, areas with strong central church
authorities had little heresy, and so, no witches -- i.e., the
Inquisitions and witch hunts mostly killed only non-witches.)
Nonetheless, there is plenty of evidence that most medieval
witch-cults were anti-society, defining themselves largely by
opposition to the existing norms.
Russian apocalyptic sects, especially (but not solely) near
the year 1000, when a couple of these groups managed to pull off
some mass suicides and worse things.
A late 19th century religious sect in sub-Saharan Africa
(dang, don't have my notes here). Expecting Jesus to come and drive
out the evil white men (and they _were_ evil, certainly), a young
girl convinced around 40,000 other black Africans to sell or kill
all their cows, burn their huts, put on white robes, and gather
together on hilltops to receive Jesus. Jim Jones is a modern
example.
Jehovah's Witnesses, who do not believe in providing
certain services that most governments take for granted (which is
why JW's were put in Nazi concentration camps along with Jews).
I could probably come up with another twenty or so, put to
the test. But I won't. Note that many of these groups _weren't_ and
"_aren't_ any threat to central authority or society, but their
perception as such sometimes turned them into this -- as with the
Huguenots.
Sandy
------------------------------
End of Glorantha Digest V2 #335
*******************************
RuneQuest is a trademark of Avalon Hill, and Glorantha is a trademark
of Chaosium. With the exception of previously copyrighted material,
unless specified otherwise all text in this digest is copyright by the
author or authors, with rights granted to copy for personal use, to
excerpt in reviews and replies, and to archive unchanged for
electronic retrieval.
Send electronic mail to Majordomo@hops.wharton.upenn.edu with "help"
in the body of the message for subscription information on this and
other mailing lists.
WWW material at http://hops.wharton.upenn.edu/~loren/rolegame.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 16:28:59 EEST