Wednesday, January 19, 2011

So what is wrong with religion?

Religions are corporations. Corporations are defined as 'persons'. Religion defines itself as a group of worshippers dedicated to exacting the will of their personal leader. The will of their personal leader is discovered by the edicts of religious leaders who are human beings studying sacred writings to convince the worshippers that their personal leader is guiding them to benefit themselves(supposedly the entire group, but not necessarilly). Religious leaders may come and go, like CEOs and board members, but the 'person' in charge is, of course their transcendental personal leader, who is, in fact, the corporation.

There is nothing wrong with this idea as far as religion is concerned, except that it justifies the existence of other corporations as persons.

The trouble is that corporations have only their own interests at heart no matter what the interests of each member of the corporation and certainly disregarding the opinion of anyone not even in the corporation.

If a group of people want to not be held responsible for their actions and be completely self-centred and have absolutely no regard for others, they incorporate, creating a transcendental 'being', a 'person' who isn't there, in effect a GOD.


Harry C Pharisee said...


You didn't connect the dots man, you just didn't. You realize you can legitimately say that corporations are corrupt and religions are corrupt (period).

The strict correlation you and Bri are trying to make just ain't working.

pboyfloyd said...

What a splendidly religious answer Harry.

"You didn't connect the dots man..." = 'you're wrong.'

"You realize you can legitimately say that corporations are corrupt and religions are corrupt"

= 'you're wrong'.(I think)

" The strict correlation you and Bri are trying to make just ain't working."

= 'you and Bri are wrong'.


Anything?? Anything?

Harvey said...

I have to agree in a general way with Pboy's analogy between incorporation and organized religion. There are many more areas of similarity than difference.
To me, the biggest difference lies in the fact that corporations are generally founded to accomplish some stated end (i.e. to make money/corner the market/make the best auto possible/cure disease/etc./etc.)
Religions, on the other hand, arise out of fear (of the unknown/the afterlife/will the sun ever come back/etc./etc.)Needless to say, both of these entities may become corrupt and (I daresay)usually do, but for different reasons appropriate to their central raisons d'etre. Corporations become corrupt because they care only for profit and, as pointed out, will do so even at the expense of their shareholders when necessary to their own survival. Generally, corporations don't care whether anyone not in the group agree with them. Religion becomes (is) corrupt because it can never actually achieve confirmation (at least in this life) of its core "raison d'etre", except by convincing/coercing everyone else (i.e. not in the corporation) that it has things right.

Harry C Pharisee said...

"What a splendidly religious answer Harry."

Mea culpa. You do have a point, but my post wasn't solely unbacked criticism.

My main issue is what I percieve as you and Brian ignoring the possibilities that one, two types of institutions can be equally corrupt for separate reasons. Which is what I was trying to say here:

"You realize you can legitimately say that corporations are corrupt and religions are corrupt (period)."

Secondly, perhaps institutionalization has inherent hegemony, and in fact it does not matter in the slightest whether its form is religious, political, economic, or academic.

You and I can make correlations between two entities till the cows come home and it doesn't make it so.

So let me approach what I think is your broader point and you can tell me whether I've got it or not.

Religions and corporations are relatively self-perpetuating ideologies, and as such literally can't be concerned with the people within or without the group, organization etc. except for how they can use them.

But there are a select few who help the ideologies perpetuate and only they ever benefit from this process.

If the above is correct, how does, "Religions are corporations," follow? To me that would be like saying because apples and oranges are both fruit, apples are oranges.

What say ye?

Harry C Pharisee said...

"You and I can make *correlations between two entities till the cows come home and it doesn't make it so."

Meaning strict and unyielding correlations.

pboyfloyd said...

Well Harry, my point is that there is a one to one equivalence between any corporation, the board of directors, the share-holders and the rest of the world and a religion.

The corporation is a person.

The religion is (about) a person(God).

These two persons are equivalent.

The board of directors are equivalent to the religious leaders, be it the Pope and his cardinals on down through the corporation or some other hierarchy.

The world consists of the the congregation, consumers, workers, people who have a vested interest to show up, rival corporations/religions and so on.

There are all these parallels, which include a 'leader' who isn't 'really' there!!

Pepsi Co. isn't a human being, but it's a 'person'.

God isn't a human being but he's a 'person'.

Now these simple and straightforward one-to-one comparisons can be made to show that a 'person' can exist without really existing at all.

All this without even considering whether they do good or evil or a bit of both.

Wasn't Faith-based Initiatives just another corporate bail-out by the Bush Administration?

Certainly the objective of a religion is to gain more membership and giving them Govt. funds to supply services obliging one to feel, well, 'obliged', doesn't hurt them in that regard at all.

pboyfloyd said...

So, go ahead and make me wrong Harry.

Make comparisons to some different kinds of entities, which are totally bogus, ''til the cows come home'.

Santa and corporations, did that! But he is another 'immaterial' person.

mac said...

C'mon. All you have to do is kiss Hank's ass.
Is that so hard?

Harry C Pharisee said...

"The religion is (about) a person(God)."

Peeb, this is incoherent. Your parentheticals make the statement have two distinct meanings. 'The religion is a person,' is different than 'The religion is about a person, God.'

Pick one.

Since you're keen on any disagreement with you making me like Eric I'd hate to disappoint you. So per this formulation of your second statement in your argument:

The corporation is a person
The religion is a person
Thus, R and C are equivalent

All C are P
All R are P
Thus, All R are C

Is invalid by committing the fallacy of the undistributed middle. Mood AAA, figure 2. I'll illustrate.

All cats are mammals
All dogs are mammals
Thus, All dogs are cats

And per this formulation of your second statement:

The corporation is a person
The religion is about a person, God
Thus, R and C are equivalent

Doesn't fit the form of a typical 3 line syllogism, but that is Aristotle's limitation (or mine) and not yours. I don't think your conclusion reasonably follows anyway:

All dogs are mammals
All cats are blanks/fish/mogwai/equations/whatever
Thus, all dogs are cats

And yes the rephrases are actually equivalent to your statements and not hocus pocus. But of course I don't expect you to take my word for it. Check it out for yourself.

pboyfloyd said...

"The religion is (about) a person(God)."

"The corporation is (about) a person(GM)."