(no subject)

[aesmael]

Perhaps I should moderate myself more. I read things people say which inspire me to polemical writing and the result, being caught up in rhetorical acts, is often something I would not be willing to say in direct conversation. This suggests to me either I should be interpersonally bolder, more rhetorically muted, or make clearer the distance between the words which inspire mine and the more generalised directions I tend to mean them.

In other news, it bothers me when people describe conservative religious leaders or leaders who invoke religion as 'probably faking belief to manipulate the masses'. It makes me think the speakers hold religion so in contempt they do not think believers are capable of such popular or effective leadership. I wonder if these people, often atheists, realise what they are saying sounds a lot like "I think much of what is worst in society is due to atheists cynically manipulating religious belief to their personal benefit". But I see no reason why these leaders couldn't mean what they say. Their followers appear to, mostly.

Comments

[allieflowlight.livejournal.com]

In my experience, the religious leaders who fake it are rare compared to those who honestly, earnestly believe. I think it can be hard for intellectual folks to accept that, because we look at ridiculous beliefs and go, "How can any intelligent person believe in these things?" (Answer: fear of hell, combined with the sunk-cost fallacy and an unwillingness to believe one is wrong.)