Re: [Marxism] Theocracy

[Greg McDonald <sabocat59@xxxxxxx>]

I agree with virtually all your points, especially the use of drugs  
as a VEHICLE for transcendence. My wording was unfortunate.

I would not, however, make such a sharp distinction between  
functionalist sociology and anthropology. Anthropology has had its  
share of structural-functionalist theorists, mainly British, such as  
Malinowski and Radcliffe-Brown. The former was more concerned with  
how cultural aspects reinforced the fulfillment of material needs.  
There is also the distinction within anthropology between magic and  
religion. The use of magic was more of an attempt to control the  
external environment, while the anthropology of religion is quite  
eclectic in its approach. Shamanism seems to straddle the two  
(religion and magic). Actually I know some shamans. They're quite  
nice people, and one once helped me with my back pain. It's  
interesting how one can dress up focus, intention, and energetic  
modalities in spiritual terms, but the latter is not necessary for  
the body to heal itself.

I'm sympathetic to the dilemma posed by your partner's profession as  
minister. As an undergraduate, I was fortunate to have studied  
sociology under a teacher who was a former
mormon. He talked about still going to services, where he would tell  
congregants that although he did not share the belief-system, he  
nonetheless felt compelled to be among them because he shared their  
concerns, and after all, he was still part of the community. I first  
read Marx and Freud under his tutelage. The idea of religion as an  
aspiration that cannot be fulfilled is an interesting idea. I would  
amend that somewhat. I would put a "yet" in there, and suggest that  
perhaps religion can be an incubator for social change. You know, a  
utopian construct. Certainly liberation theology could be read in  
such a light.

Although I was raised in the protestant tradition, I gravitated to a  
Buddhist approach to reconcile my need for something which actually  
worked on the psychological level, along with my lack of faith in the  
supernatural. Most Buddhist traditions are quite agnostic on the  
issue of deities, and one of my primary meditation teachers once told  
me that in the larger analysis meditation was primarily a discipline  
to keep people from hurting each other unnecessarily, either verbally  
or physically. Melting down on a meditation cushion for ten days  
without talking will do wonders for one's self control.

In terms of the study of civil religion, I think Bellah was more  
interested in laying out a superstructural edifice. He would analyze  
presidential speeches in terms of theological symbology. But of  
course there are all these events where speeches are made. My  
interest in sports as a new religion was piqued by Nestor's post of  
an essay by a certain Yugoslav whose name escapes me at the moment.  
Certainly sporting events are places where, collectively speaking,  
the norms and beliefs of civil religion are on full display, and  
where, quite obviously, those norms and beliefs are reinforced.

Here's the owl of minerva quotation.  Robert Bellah: There is a  
sense, and some people have said this, that the article on civil  
religion was Minerva's Owl, taking off at dusk, and that it was  
described just as it was over. I think it's really a question whether  
the last 30 years hasn't seen its end.

The original article can be read here: http://www.robertbellah.com/ 
articles.html







________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism