RoR: Forum

Unfortunately, we will probably not have the chance to find out if Mr. Romney can lead a 'revolution' to reign in the abusive power we have, as a people, given to the government. I say unfortunately, because often elections are won by convincing 'the people' that the candidate is 'loveable', or 'believable'. Mr. Romney is neither believable nor loveable. Even with all of his failed policies, Mr Obama is still loveable and kinda believable, especially since the press allows him to continue blaming the Bush years for most if not all of our economic woes. Both of these terms (believable and loveable) are very much a large part of the american religious element that is so prevelant in today's society, and often is what helps swing voters in their decision at the voting booth. With that being said (sadly), I would like to propose another reason why Mr Romney will not, or possibly can not lead such a revolution.

I spent over 60 years in mormonism, before I became elightened to 'reason'. Many if not all of the concepts/beliefs that mormonism teach, no they demand, is not just recognize authority, but rather bow to it and never question it. To do so places one in the position of being excommunicated or other church court action. However; the church gives passes (nothing in print of course) but a pass none the less which allows that person to continue in 'good standing' if they can accomplish a 'greater good'. Their recorded history and theology is full of such examples, and it spreads throughout the full spectrum of its membership. The main reason why Mr. Romney has been so succesful without bringing the judgements of his church is because of the immense amount of money which he contributes. Money is not the only thing that can create these passes. There is also fame such as with actors, singers, sports heros etc. One of the most common is people who are beautiful, and know how to smile (or other similiar things) at the right people at the right time, and especially in the appropriate location.

Now we can only guess if the 'church leadership' is going to give him a pass to do his job, but a very important doctrine within the church, which every member must memorize and keep as a guiding principle, is that of being 'obedient' to the law of the land. Will they let him be an instrument to change the law of the land, or will he be another pawn in the hands of the powerbrokers to push the plan of world domination by said church. Who knows? Of course I could just be another crackpot conspiricy theory junkie. But then again what happened to get us to this point with the huge government and power corrupt politicians?

Post 1

Wednesday, July 4, 2012 - 5:07pm

Welcome to RoR, Sylvan!

When you have some time, perhaps you can post an article sharing with us your journey from faith to reason.

As an aside, "The Clergy Project" helps members of the clergy who want to come "out" as atheists to do so.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 7/04, 5:08pm)

Post 2

Thursday, July 5, 2012 - 11:34am

Thank you for the welcome, and for the invitation to share my story.. I will do it. Also I did check out the 'clergy' site, and found it extremely interesting. I dont really label myself as an athiest, or for that matter I don't label myself as a non-believer. I feel like the opposite of belief is not non, or anti-belief, but rather more like moving from belief or faith into reality. After reading/studying the writings of 'Carse' and specifically his book 'A Religious case against belief', lots and lots of very interesting stuff. He managed to suggest that one could give up 'belief' and embrace reality and still have some connection to 'religion'. That requires looking at "True" religion as a work of poetry or maybe just an art form which could be expressed in many ways. What he is pretty firm on, is that religion cannot in fact must not include any form of believing. For example; looking at or painting a picture of the ocean with a sunset in the distance, can create certain feelings within onself without recognition of some supreme all powerful entity. Although I have found some of his explanations a little confusing. Again, thank you for your kind comments.

Post 3

Friday, July 6, 2012 - 4:20am

I recommend The Romantic Manifesto by Ayn Rand for this "sense of life" connection to art as she also borrows the language of religion in her descriptions, e.g. "spirit," "soul," etc. though she describes herself as an "intransigent atheist."

Post 4

Friday, July 6, 2012 - 5:49am

Rand had argued, I believe in an introduction to an edition of her novel, The Fountainhead, that religion hijacked the terminology of the soul or spirit. Ancient Greeks, for example, had used these ideas with no mystical implications. The soul or the spirit of someone was the specifically human rational life force. So it would seem that religions were the belated employers of such concepts.

Post 5

Friday, July 6, 2012 - 6:50am

From my article The Trickster Archetype and Objectivism:

"Rand self-consciously appropriates religious symbols and metaphors throughout The Fountainhead. Though Roark is an atheist, Toohey observes: "He will tell you that he doesn't believe in God�. Don't believe him. He's a profoundly religious man--in his own way. You can see that in his buildings" (Rand [1943] 1993, 317). Rand remarks in her twenty-fifth anniversary introduction to The Fountainhead: "Religion's monopoly in the field of ethics has made it extremely difficult to communicate the emotional meaning and connotations of a rational view of life." On These grounds, she recasts such concepts as "exaltation," worship," "reverence," and the "sacred" (ix)."

Even the title of a work such as Anthem alludes to a religious hymn. As Peikoff states: "Anthem is a religiously toned word�[meaning] ' a piece of sacred vocal music, usually with words taken from the scriptures.' This does not mean that Ayn Rand conceived her book as religious. The opposite is true." (Piekoff in Rand [1961] 1995, iv).

(Edited by Joe Maurone on 7/06, 7:13am)

Post 6

Friday, July 6, 2012 - 7:10am

Rand, in the 25th anniversary edition of The Fountainhead, regarding a misleading sentence:

"The possibly misleading sentence is in Roark's speech: 'From this simplest necessity to the highest religious abstraction, from the wheel to the skyscraper, everything we are and everything we have comes from a single attribute of man-the function of his reasoning mind.'

"This could be misinterpreted to mean an endorsement of religion or religious ideas. I remember hesitating over that sentence, when I wrote it, and deciding that Roark's and my atheism, as well as the overall spirit of the book, were so clearly established that no one would misunderstand it, particularly since I said that religious abstractions are the product of man's mind, not of supernatural revelation.

"But an issue of this sort should not be left to implications. When I was referring to was not religion as such, but a special category of abstractions, the most exalted one, which, for centuries, has been the near-monopoly of religion: ethics-not the particular content of religious ethics, but the abstraction 'ethics,' the realm of values, man's code of ethics, man's code of good and evil, with the emotional connotations of height, uplift, nobility, reverence, grandeur, which pertain to the realm of man's values, but which religion has arrogated to itself."

...

"Just as religion has preempted the field of ethics, turning morality against man, so it has usurped the highest moral concepts of our language, placing the outside this earth and beyond man's reach. 'Exaltation' is usually taken to mean an emotional state evoked by contemplating the supernatural. 'Worship' means the emotional experience of loyalty and dedication to something higher than man. 'Reverence' means the emotion of a scared respect, to be experienced on one's knees. 'Sacred' means superior to an not-to-be-touched-by any concerns of man or of this earth. Etc.

"But such concepts do name actual emotions, even though no supernatural dimension exists; and these emotions are experienced as uplifting or ennobling, without the self-abasement required by religious definitions. What, then, is their source or referent in reality? It is the entire emotional realm of man's dedication to a moral idea...

"It is this highest level of man's emotions that has to be redeemed from the murk of mysticism and redirected at its proper object: man.

"It is in this sense, with this meaning and intention, that I would identify the sense of life dramatized in The Fountainhead as man-worship."

"Just as religion has preempted the field of ethics, turning morality against man, so it has usurped the highest moral concepts of our language, placing the outside this earth and beyond man's reach. 'Exaltation' is usually taken to mean an emotional state evoked by contemplating the supernatural. 'Worship' means the emotional experience of loyalty and dedication to something higher than man. 'Reverence' means the emotion of a scared respect, to be experienced on one's knees. 'Sacred' means superior to an not-to-be-touched-by any concerns of man or of this earth. Etc.

"But such concepts do name actual emotions, even though no supernatural dimension exists; and these emotions are experienced as uplifting or ennobling, without the self-abasement required by religious definitions. What, then, is their source or referent in reality? It is the entire emotional realm of man's dedication to a moral idea...

"It is this highest level of man's emotions that has to be redeemed from the murk of mysticism and redirected at its proper object: man.

"It is in this sense, with this meaning and intention, that I would identify the sense of life dramatized in The Fountainhead as man-worship."
(Edited by Joe Maurone on 7/06, 7:25am)

Post 7

Friday, July 6, 2012 - 8:26am