Are the major ones embracing it?
Formalized, as in an official standing on what morals should be?
It’s taking a little longer than I’d hoped but give it a little more time… 
Formalized, as in an official standing on what morals should be?
[/QUOTE]
The 10 Commandments. I’m certain you’ve heard of them.
I’m sure the 10CM have good intentions, but the people behind it want to shove it down your throat, and you’re wrong if you don’t swallow it. That is what I find criminal. Not only that, things like homosexuality aren’t even mentioned in the 10CM. So where’s that “moral value” (to them, it’s immoral) coming from? Criminal criminal criminal!
Organized crime and Religion are on two different pages in the same book. If I had to choose, I’d go with OC. They get things done. If anything, it’s real and factual.
Which set of 10 commandments?
Aren’t there like 3 different ones in the bible?
Quidksilver :
I don’t understand the premise that if we do away with organized religion then that will leave a gap for the criminals? What you said here–
Do you mean that religion is helping to keep organized crime in check? Or that OR provides the OC guy with a shot at redemption aka wandering into a church and being saved?
Splitting hairs.
:smack:
No. No. No. I’m arguing that OC and OR are NOT the opposite sides of the same coin. They are different currencies.
The only reason I’m even using those two social institutions in the same sentence is because I am arguing against the opinion stated by Anaamika in the thread I linked above.
“Organized Crime” is a moniker endowed upon such organizations externally. Very few, if any, such organizatiosn think of themselves as criminals but rather benefactors and businessmen, from the Medellin Cartel to the Capone Organziation to the “Five Families” of the Sicilian Mafia.
Under the Pendergast Machine, for instance, Kansas City had well paved roads, well-decorated streets (it was once known as the “Paris of the Mid-West” for it’s famed fountains), good public schools, and street crime strictly kept out of “good” neighborhoods. Now, it’s just another example of urban blight.
Contrast that with, say, the Catholic Church, which dedicated itself during the Inquisitions to virtual genocide of the “Jewish Race” and prosecution of the Crusades to “take back the Holy Land” (i.e. sack every town and village from Rome to Bethlehem). We won’t even begin to address the conquest of the New World other than to note that the Church and it’s representatives actively participated in the wholesale slaughter of entire nations of people for no greater goal than to send gold back to Rome.
Religious organizations do not always want to “do good”. They want to maintain and expand, like any other bureaucracy, and if necessary to keep the faith of their members and acquire more wealth, whip up a frenzy and start a war. “Good” and “Evil” are simplistic concepts that people like to apply to things they like or agree with and dislike, respectively, but rarely represent the sum total of all benefit and harms an organization or movement performs.
Stranger
I don’t understand why you need to be convinced. It’s her opinion. The thread is in IMHO, not Great Debates. I’m sure she has reasons why she feels the way she does.
The RCC certainly has a dark history, as do others. IIRC, Anaamika is Muslim. There are plenty of reasons for considering religions as oppressive and in some circumstances evil. The name Torquemada springs immediately to mind.
The tobacco industry has been involved in a criminal enterprise since researchers and doctors figured out smoking was bad for you. They tried to shove their body politic down people’s throat (and lungs) until they could no longer get away with it. OR is going the same road these days. BUT, not every person working for a tobacco company is evil incarnate. No more than every individual involved with organized religion. Some truly do “the Lord’s work”, i.e. hospitals, schools, shelters, etc…
By definition, every person involved in OC is a criminal. They may be more efficient at “getting things done” but it doesn’t make them any more honest or admirable.
In general, I’m very surprised by the bravado of some people who eagerly rush to defend OC for it’s “honesty”. I can only guess that it’s due to a distorted and romanticized portrayal of OC by Hollywood and some fiction literature.
To that end, we should be more apt to compare them to politicians, monarchs and monopolist. Not organized crime syndicates.
You’re right.
Anaamika, I respectfully disagree. 
Also, wanted to mention… Sins of the fathers. Is there evidence that these kinds of things are being pursued by OR in this day and age? Again, I’m not sanctifying OR, just resisting the urge to throw out the baby with the bath water.
“Religion” or the “church” seems to be doing a chamelion like dance in this discussion. In some cases we’re talking about the lunatic fringe of religion that practices insane ritual rights and in other cases (like yours) it’s the classic age old institution. It’s difficult to know which view I’m required to address from moment to moment.
I take it you found my answer (in the original thread) satisfactory.
Yes, I did.
I actually thoght that if I were more eloquent, I could have used your words to describe my thoughts as well. I’m not entirely sure about what it is that I wrote that you disagreed with, anyway.
Well, it may be not nice to make blanket statements, but in thread after thread, I have defended the idea of making them about groups that adhere to creeds, and thus, I find nothing in which I disagree with Anaamika. Anaamika, please don’t start growing extra organs.
First, apologies to Anaamika --I meant to type that and typed Indy instead. Need better meds, I guess!
Second, since I was the one who brought up the “honesty” of OC, I thought I should reply here.
By no means do I “glamorize” OC–not even The Godfather or Some Like It Hot change my opinion that OC is disgusting and wrong.
But they also know that what they do is wrong–they may not see it that way and wish it weren’t, but I doubt that any OC guy is ignorant of the consequences of his actions.
Contrast that with OR–they think they are doing “good”–and are also perceived by society to be so. So, isn’t it easier for the priest to keep abusing kids, the pastor to molest women–whatever it is? Our assumptions and expectations about OR are very different from OC–we give OR a “pass” wjhen we should be as watchful of OR as we are of OC. Not to eradicate OR–but to make it not above human laws and rights.
<mini-rant>Those damned priests–prosecute their asses! My license can be yanked if I don’t report abuse/molestation–why were those morons re-assigned? Some have been prosecuted, true–but it’s the tip of the iceberg. Nor do I believe, for clarity’s sake, that it is only Catholic priests who share this pathology–pastors. mullahs(sp?), rabbis-ALL have the possibility to abuse power in this way. How that differs from a criminal is beyond me-what they did IS criminal. And instead of a bag of money for each “hit”-they had to confess and say sorry and do it all again…because confession is supposed to wipe the slate clean. One problem: that only works for the perp. What of the victims?
Anyway, I do see parallels–are they exact and equivalent? Maybe not. I would say that there is enough there to change my perspective on some issues.
For Anaamika to call us on this is a good thing. To examine assumptions is always fruitful, to my mind.
You won’t catch me defending these fuckers. But I don’t understand why we’re going off on tangents and stating the obvious. Yes, horrible things have been done in the name of religion. Horrible things continue to be perpertrated by religious zealots. But just like we don’t paint all <insert social/political group of choice here>, we should refrain from doing the same to religious groups.
You’ll have to explain this one to me again. 
We didn’t disagree. You simply asked for my point of view and I gave it.
As this thread has made it altogether clear to me that Anaamika is of the female persuasion, I’m will now go scrub off my brain.
For the record, I have no desire to wish Anaamika to grow a set of balls. I don’t wish that on any woman… unless, you know, they wanted some…
A thicker skin is all I meant. A little resilience.
I think it is not Anaamika who needs a thicker skin.
I never did think that you were defending those scum.
However, like Stranger said-
Both OC and OR share some commonalities. I don’t see the that stating that is disrespectful to OR or serves to elevate OC. It just is. ANY institution is likely to have as a primary focus the continued existance and success of itself–this leads to certain similiar characteristics-see above.