Spirituality can be a pacifier. Or it can be the shared cause of material changes as we've seen throughout history. No need to shit all over billions of people worldwide to make that point.
I don’t really see how Ecoleo is “shitting on billions of people worldwide.” Religion helps people find connection and deal with the pain of life. What we believe people should do is besides the point—capitalism has a desacralizing drive, and most likely people will continue to turn away from organized religious tradition in the most capitalist countries.
I would also argue that more often, material changes in society lead to liberatory spiritual expressions.
believing in some pie in the sky
rip off rose colored glasses
Spirituality is a pacifier
Not sure how to take that any other way than shitting on spirituality?
Religion helps people find connection and deal with the pain of life.
Perhaps, but I don't think that encompasses the totality of religion's role in folks lives or even the main role. Religion's roles include community, connection to the past, beauty, art, meaning, reflection, ritual, and service of others among others. It also gives people a shared language to express feelings, desires, goals, hopes, etc. It's of course used cynically as a tool by some, but it's far more than a set of beliefs that lets one sleep at night.
I would also argue that more often, material changes in society lead to liberatory spiritual expressions.
I am dumb and don't know much history and I agree with you here, but I'd wonder how often those material changes in society stem from liberatory spiritual expressions.
Not sure how to take that any other way than shitting on spirituality?
I see your point there--"pacifier" is definitely infantilizing imagery. I do think the "pie in the sky" message of religion is most pronounced in the context of America, a hedonistic land of plenty. (Mormonism, which is a fully americanized Christianity, promises godhood to believers in the afterlife.) Perhaps this is the case in other settler-colonial societies.
The 3rd world/non-western religion I am most familiar with is Hinduism, due to family ties to India, and it can certainly be wielded to uphold a pessimistic, hierarchical worldview, most notably by the present BJP/Modi government. It doesn't promise a pie-in-the-sky, but it does offer some sense of meaning/purpose to existing social relations, which is undoubtedly important. I could be wrong, but I think 19th century Catholicism/Eastern Orthodoxy had a much more sober day-to-day outlook and promised less to "you the individual" than "we the community of churchgoers." In both cases, I don't deny people's real attachment to their faith, but how much of it is the product of being born into a society that offers no alternatives? That castigates or even demonizes those who don't belong to the In Group (untouchables, Jews, etc.)? But that might not be an especially useful comparison to modern America.
Religion’s roles include community, connection to the past, beauty, art, meaning, reflection, ritual, and service of others among others. It also gives people a shared language to express feelings, desires, goals, hopes, etc.
Thanks: I appreciate that reminder. No real comment here, other than I hope that in a better world, we'd have these parts of religion (I think etymologically it means "linking to others") without the coercive/exploitative aspects.
but I’d wonder how often those material changes in society stem from liberatory spiritual expressions.
That's fair! I guess it's whatcha call a dialectic-both the material and spiritual condition and drive one another--though Marxism would tend to give primacy to material changes, it's reductive to deny spirituality a key historical role. I fervently hope that we experience some sort of "spiritual revolution" in the 21st century. I guess I'm skeptical of the spirituality we need coming out of existing religious traditions, though to be fair these same traditions have survived great catastrophes and upheavals over thousands of years.
BTW I read some James Cone in college and dig your username, comrade! :100-com:
Spirituality can be a pacifier. Or it can be the shared cause of material changes as we've seen throughout history. No need to shit all over billions of people worldwide to make that point.
I don’t really see how Ecoleo is “shitting on billions of people worldwide.” Religion helps people find connection and deal with the pain of life. What we believe people should do is besides the point—capitalism has a desacralizing drive, and most likely people will continue to turn away from organized religious tradition in the most capitalist countries.
I would also argue that more often, material changes in society lead to liberatory spiritual expressions.
Not sure how to take that any other way than shitting on spirituality?
Perhaps, but I don't think that encompasses the totality of religion's role in folks lives or even the main role. Religion's roles include community, connection to the past, beauty, art, meaning, reflection, ritual, and service of others among others. It also gives people a shared language to express feelings, desires, goals, hopes, etc. It's of course used cynically as a tool by some, but it's far more than a set of beliefs that lets one sleep at night.
I am dumb and don't know much history and I agree with you here, but I'd wonder how often those material changes in society stem from liberatory spiritual expressions.
I see your point there--"pacifier" is definitely infantilizing imagery. I do think the "pie in the sky" message of religion is most pronounced in the context of America, a hedonistic land of plenty. (Mormonism, which is a fully americanized Christianity, promises godhood to believers in the afterlife.) Perhaps this is the case in other settler-colonial societies.
The 3rd world/non-western religion I am most familiar with is Hinduism, due to family ties to India, and it can certainly be wielded to uphold a pessimistic, hierarchical worldview, most notably by the present BJP/Modi government. It doesn't promise a pie-in-the-sky, but it does offer some sense of meaning/purpose to existing social relations, which is undoubtedly important. I could be wrong, but I think 19th century Catholicism/Eastern Orthodoxy had a much more sober day-to-day outlook and promised less to "you the individual" than "we the community of churchgoers." In both cases, I don't deny people's real attachment to their faith, but how much of it is the product of being born into a society that offers no alternatives? That castigates or even demonizes those who don't belong to the In Group (untouchables, Jews, etc.)? But that might not be an especially useful comparison to modern America.
Thanks: I appreciate that reminder. No real comment here, other than I hope that in a better world, we'd have these parts of religion (I think etymologically it means "linking to others") without the coercive/exploitative aspects.
BTW I read some James Cone in college and dig your username, comrade! :100-com: