posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 03:30 PM
I'm a little confused by the perspective of #9, Organized Religion. The second paragraph seems unrepentantly anti-Roman Catholic, without any
thought to the history of many figures in the history of Christianity, such as Francis of Assisi, who were reformers in their own right.
It also seems to suggest that these first Protestant followers of Christianity were somehow more in touch with the "original" vision of Jesus. (And
not working out of the socio-economic tensions that emerged from a more consolidated middle class versus their feudal overlords.) Where would, for
example, John Locke's use of Protestant Christianity to justify the slave trade or Dutch Calvinism's emphasis on the exploitation of third world
country's fit in with this original vision of Jesus?
I'm not arguing that "organized religion" (whatever that means) is not frequently discussed on these boards. But the way that this issue was
written seems almost bizarre in its bias. Some basic questions to ask, I would think, would be what is religion, what does it mean for a religion to
be organized, and how does this organization form in to a conspiracy?