Religion is a multiplicity that comes in a variety of flavors as a sociological actuality

Intricate theology is a nice hobby, but religion should be understood at the level of practice or sittlichkeit, at the level of its being as a social fact with a political impact. I suspect the problem here is that some of us are taking religion as a social fact and viewing it sociologically in terms of what it’s actually doing in the States, whereas others are taking it as a body of propositions and divorcing it from its social reality. Read the links. And read the links on the links. I get irritated by the positivism of the Enlightenment thinkers as well, but this makes me feel sympathetic. I’m all for Jesus as a militant revolutionary, but I just ain’t seeing it in the public sphere. The videogame is especially nice. ~ by larvalsubjects on December 16, 2006.

In evoking the concept of “sittlichkeit”, I was not referencing Hegel’s lectures on religion, but living customs and practices that a group of people actually engage in. That is, religion as a sociological actuality or fact, religion as it’s actually practice and conceived outside the academy. In my view, most of what you mention in these texts is little more than academic rationalizations and abstractions, divorced from a living reality. That said, religion, of course, is a multiplicity that comes in a variety of flavors as a sociological actuality. It just so happens that a particular flavor happens to be particularly dominant in the United States. Sinthome said this on December 16th, 2006 at 6:08 pm

I believe that when one is enthusiastic about something like say the nationalistic American patriot, it is difficult for that person to see clearly their own country as their first instinct is to always defend that country. For instance, you remark “in the popular imaginiation, yes, but I think that it is effectively over in reality.” What evidence do you have for this claim when stories are in press every day about things similar to this. Rather than dismissively saying these things are effectively over, why not instead call a spade a spade, recognize that it’s there, and offer an alternative? This is the frustration I was expressing in a previous post. In these sorts of discussions, step one of discussion can’t even be reached as those critical of these phenomena are shot down by the pseudo-victimized Christians that stick their fingers in their ears and say either 1) “it doesn’t exist!”, or 2) “they’re only a minority” (nevermind the legislation they were writing up until this last November), or 3) these people just misunderstand things.

This, I believe, is reactionary. The critic’s knowledge and understanding of religion is then denegrated as in the case of the recent Dawkins affair. Frankly, as someone who has seen books actually burned by these groups (Orwell’s 1984 in highschool for its sexual content), or made to pray by high level administrators at a public school before meetings, and who has also witnessed the campaigns against women, homosexuals, science, and then seen videogames being marketed based on the Left Behind series that have kids killing those who don’t convert following the apocalypse, including Jews and U.N. members, I can certainly understand Dawkin’s point of view and lack of sympathy towards nuance and theology. You can call it effectively dead, but I ask you, which Christian groups are currently raising the highest dollars and which Christian groups currently boast the largest and most organized followings? Hint, it ain’t the liberation theologists, who I would be delighted to see own this discourse. I just don’t have much patience for intricate theological discussions, when I hear one thing and see quite another. A more effective rhetorical strategy would be

1) to acknowledge that these things are the target of the vehement atheists (I tend to think the militant atheist gets confused, getting unproductively caught up with discussions of whether God exists and not attending to the reactionary religious movements that led her to her animosity in the first place),

2) that it is a legitimate target,

3) that this phenomenon is something real, of genuine concern, and worth struggling against, and

4) offering a healthy alternative that distinguishes ones position from this and forming a social movement that makes this alternative voice heard. Sinthome said this on December 16th, 2006 at 6:58 pm