What else is there to say? This statement is correct: religion has always been misused for political purposes - that’s what the sentence says, not that religion itself is always misused; that’s your interpretation.
Besides, if you’d read a little further, you probably would have figured out what I’m trying to say.
You’re reading into my statement that it somehow implies I’m making some kind of fundamental claim about religion here. I’m sorry, but it’s simply a fact that religion is being misused for political purposes. I can’t help it if you’re turning that into a fundamental claim that isn’t there at all.
What makes you think I’m not fully aware of that?
I’m talking about the dangers of exploiting religion, which remains one of humanity’s most serious problems, as is currently and undeniably illustrated by the monstrous regimes in the U.S. and Israel, for example.
I never said that religion should be rejected outright or that it cannot also do good.
I don’t understand how you came to that conclusion.
Religion certainly plays a regulatory role within society - historically, for a very, very long time. It also promotes values such as charity, empathy, and humility as virtues. The problem, unfortunately, is that this system of order is frequently abused in practice - just like the legal system, whose guidelines are often derived from religious values. So it is not religion itself that is the problem, but the way it is abused.
A good example of this is the ultra-conservative Christians in the U.S.: Since this ideology is being exploited politically to promote a ruthless form of hyper-capitalism that serves only a tiny elite, there is no room for values such as humanity and empathy, which the Bible clearly prescribes as positive values. Thus, inhuman policies are legitimized in the name of God and Jesus, though only those aspects of religion that enable the propagation of “in-groups” and “out-groups” are utilized. On the one hand, this serves to convey a sense of community, and on the other, to deny all rights -including the right to exist - to anyone who does not belong. Of course, this could no longer be reconciled with Christian ethics, but since this is not about ethics but about power, these schizophrenic movements are nevertheless very successful.
This logic is present in nearly all forms of religious extremism - from ultra-Christians to fanatical Muslims and Jews to Hindus and so on. These fundamentalist movements always have one thing in common: they are not interested in good, peaceful coexistence, but solely in the dominance of one group over another, which is because they are political movements whose leaders use religion merely as a means of power to legitimize their inhumane ideology.
But please don’t misunderstand what I’m saying here: It is not religion itself that is the problem, but the way it is abused to pit people against one another and distract them from who actually benefits from the corresponding policies.
This effect is by no means limited to religion: the same can be achieved, for example, by emphasizing nationality - in this case, concepts such as “foreign infiltration” serve as a backdrop of fear, so that the corresponding out-group can be denied basic rights, even their humanity.
This doesn't baffle anyone at all. On the contrary. It was entirely to be expected, given all the AIPAC money Israel uses to bribe politicians.
Religion is, and always has been, a tool used by those in power to legitimize the status quo.
Its primary purpose is to shift responsibility for actions onto fate and thus divert attention from the fact that it is people who are responsible for these actions. In this way, even the most unfair and exploitative conditions can still be portrayed as just: the king by the grace of God, the kingdom of heaven that awaits the patient after death, hell that punishes the greedy, making it unnecessary to hold them accountable in this life, and so on.
This also works in reverse to strip people of the self-confidence that they can achieve things through their own efforts: Thank God for the food he has put on the table, for your success, and for everything else, because he has given it to you in his infinite generosity - don’t even think of making demands.
In this sense, religion provides a justification for hierarchies in society. It cements the status quo in the interests of the powerful.
Hence: People who do not question this narrative - which serves their own exploitation - but have made it the purpose of their lives are quite strange, because they are thereby harming themselves.
That reminds me of the scientists in Terry Pratchett’s Discworld, who let themselves dangle in a basket from the edge of the world to conduct their research.
They're just the backup, after all. Do you really think the military would put up a fight? Or even the police?
For these three reasons alone, I consider it highly likely that this regime will now abandon even the pretense of democracy and establish a true autocracy:
Just to be on the safe side, in case the mainstream media in the U.S. doesn’t give this much coverage: The advertising budget to secure Gallrein’s election victory amounts to $32 million, a large portion of which comes from pro-Israel groups. It is the most expensive campaign of its kind in U.S. history.
Isn't it unbelievable how multi-billion-dollar corporations push out updates that should never have been released, despite the warnings from their undoubtedly highly competent developers?
That alone says everything you need to know about the times we live in...
It seems we've reached the end of the road for hyper-capitalism.
So isses. Leider sind die EU-Institutionen nicht unbedingt die aller demokratischsten, aber mir scheint es wichtig, die Dame zumindest auf diesem Weg dran zu erinnern, dass sie Volksvertreterin und (noch) keine Angestellte von US-Konzernen ist.