saving private blue

ad-libitum:

The research reported last week showing that American Christians adjust their concept of Jesus to match their own sociopolitical persuasion will surprise nobody. Liberals regard Christ primarily as someone who promoted fellowship and caring, say psychologist Lee Ross of Stanford University in California and his colleagues, while conservatives see him as a firm moralist. In other words, he’s like me, only more so. […]

[R]egarding religion as a social phenomenon would force us to see it as something real, like governments or book groups, and not just a self-propagating delusion. It is so much safer and easier to ridicule a literal belief in miracles, virgin births and other supernatural agencies than to consider religion as (among other things) one of the ways that societies have long chosen to organise their structures of authority and status, for better or worse. […]

The Stanford research reinforces the fact that a single holy book can provide the basis both for a permissive, inquiring and pro-scientific outlook (think tea and biscuits with Richard Coles) or for apocalyptic, bigoted ignorance (think Tea Party with Sarah Palin). Might we then, as good scientists, suspect that the real ills of religion originate not in the book itself, but elsewhere?

uristen, ennel semmi jobban nem illik ide most, mert mar egy-ket hete gyozkodom a fanit, hogy ez az egesz jezusi szeretet mese, meg a tobbi, moralizalos dolog, mind kizarolag csak a parasztoknak lett kitalalva, es rajuk ervenyes csak. a katolikus hagyomany pedig nem elsosorban errol szol, hanem arrol, hogy ki szuletett alattvalonak es ki uralkodonak. es hogy ebbe a levesbe koptek bele a protestansok.