Sociology Of Religion Quotes

فشعر عندها فجأة برغبة غامضة لا تقاوم في سماع موسيقى هائلة، في سماع ضجيج مطلق وصخب جميل وفرح يكتنف كل شيء ويُغرق ويخنق كل شيء، فيختفي إلى الأبد الألم والغرور وتفاهة الكلمات.

Gross well says that children are young because they play, and not vice versa; and he might have added, men grow old because they stop playing, and not conversely, for play is, at bottom, growth, and at the top of the intellectual scale it is the eternal type of research from sheer love of truth.

الوقت الإنساني لا يسير في شكل دائري بل يتقدم في خط مستقيم. من هنا، لا يمكن للإنسان أن يكون سعيداً لأن السعادة رغبة في التكرار.

كانت تشعر برغبة جامحة لأن تقول له كما تقول أتفه النساء: «لا تتركني، احتفظ بي إلى جوارك، استعبدني، كن قوياً». ولكنها لا تستطيع ولا تعرف أن تتلفظ بمثل هذه الكلمات.

it is not true that good can follow only from good and evil only from evil, but that often the opposite is true. Anyone who fails to see this is, indeed, a political infant.

The Catholic novelist in the South will see many distorted images of Christ, but he will certainly feel that a distorted image of Christ is better than no image at all. I think he will feel a good deal more kinship with backwoods prophets and shouting fundamentalists than he will with those politer elements for whom the supernatural is an embarrassment and for whom religion has become a department of sociology or culture or personality development.

لا يمكن للإنسان أبداً أن يدرك ماذا عليه أن يفعل، لأنه لا يملك إلا حياة واحدة، لا يسعه مقارنتها بِحَيوات سابقة ولا إصلاحها في حيوات لاحقة.

The danger today is in believing there are no sick people, there is only a sick society.

سبق لي أن قُلْتُ آنفاً إن الاستعارات خطيرة وإن الحب يبدأ من استعارة. وبكلمة أُخرى: الحب يبدأ في اللحظة التي تسجَّل فيها امرأة دخولها في ذاكرتنا الشعرية من خلال عبارة.

Individual cultures and ideologies have their appropriate uses but none of them erase or replace the universal experiences, like love and weeping and laughter, common to all human beings.

يمكن اختصار مأساة حياة «باستعارة» الثقل. نقول مثلاً إن حملاً قد سقط فوق أكتافنا. فنحمل هذا الحمل. نتحمله أو لا نتحمله ونتصارع معه، وفي النهاية إما أن نخسر وإما أن نربح. ولكن ما الذي حدث مع سابينا بالضبط؟ لا شيء. افترقت عن رجل لأنها كانت راغبة في الافتراق عنه. هل لاحقها بعد ذلك؟ هل حاول الانتقام؟ لا. فمأساتها ليست مأساة الثقل إنما مأساة الخفة والحمل الذي سقط فوقها لم يكن حملاً بل كان خفة الكائن التي لا تُطاق.

كان الحب بينه وبين تيريزا جميلاً، بكل تأكيد، ولكنه كان متعباً: وجب عليه دائماً أن يخفي أمراً ما، وأن يتكتم، وأن يستدرك، وأن يرفع من معنوياتها، وأن يؤاسيها، وأن يثبت باستمرار حبه لها وأن يتلقى ملامات غيرتها وألمها وأحلامها، وأن يشعر بالذنب، وأن يبرر نفسه وأن يعتذر . . الآن كل التعب تلاشى ولم تبقَ إلا الحلاوة.

تذكر عندها أسطورة أفلاطون الشهيرة «المأدبة»: ففي السابق كان البشر مزدوجي الجنس فقسّمهم الله إلى أنصاف تهيم عبر العالم مفتشة بعضها عن بعض. الحب هو تلك الرغبة في إيجاد النصف الآخر المفقود من أنفسنا.

كانت التعبير عن القرف الذي تملّكها فجأة من الجنس البشري. فتذكر أنها قالت له مؤخراً: «صرت أشعر بالامتنان لك لأنك لم ترغب قط في إنجاب الأطفال».

الموسيقى بالنسبة لفرانز هي الفن الأكثر قرباً من الجمال الديونيسي الذي يقدّس النشوة. يمكن لرواية أو للوحة أن تدوّخنا ولكن بصعوبة. أما مع السمفونية التاسعة لبيتهوڤن، أو مع السوناتة المؤلفة من آلتيْ بيانو وآلات النقر لبارتوك، أو مع أغنية للبيتلز، فإن النشوة تعترينا. من جهة أخرى فإن فرانز لا يفرّق بين الموسيقى العظيمة والموسيقى الخفيفة. فهذا التفريق يبدو له خبيثاً وبالياً، فهو يحب موسيقى الروك وموزار على حد سواء. الموسيقى بالنسبة له محرّرة: إذ تحرره من الوحدة والانعزال ومن غبار المكتبات. وتفتح في داخل جسده أبواباً لتخرج النفس وتتآخى مع الآخرين. كما أنه يحب الرقص إلى جانب ذلك ويشعر بالأسى لأن سابينا لا تشاركه هذا الولع.

ثم أردفت: «هناك في المستشفى بدأت أصنّف الكتب إلى فئتين: الكتب النهارية والكتب الليلية. وهذا صحيح، هناك كتب للنهار وكتب أُخرى لا يمكن قراءتها إلا في الليل».

فكّر توماس: إن مضاجعة امرأة والنوم معها رغبتان ليستا مختلفتين فحسب بل متناقضتان أيضاً. فالحب لا يتجلى بالرغبة في ممارسة الجنس (وهذه الرغبة تنطبق على جملة لا تحصى من النساء) ولكن بالرغبة في النوم المشترك (وهذه الرغبة لا تخصّ إلا امرأة واحدة).

It's the intellectual who transforms the concept of the world into the problem of meaning.

إذا كان الهياج الجنسي آلية يتسلى بها الخالق، فإن الحب، خلافاً لذلك لا ينتمي إلا إلينا ويمكننا من خلاله الإفلات من قبضة الخالق. فالحب هو حريتنا. الحب هو ما وراء كل «ما ليس منه بد».

لم يكونا متحدين بحنان إلَّا في الليل أثناء النوم. كانا يمسكان دائماً بأيديهما فتُنسى عندئذ الهاوية (هاوية ضوء النهار) التي كانت تفصل بينهما. ولكن هذه الليالي لم تكن تعطي توماس لا الوقت ولا الوسيلة لحمايتها والاعتناء بها. لذلك فهو عندما كان يراها في الصباح ينقبض قلبه ويرتجف خوفاً من أجلها: كانت تبدو حزينة ومتوعكة.

وسعادتهما لم تكن على الرغم من الحزن بل بفضله.

The less justified a man is in claiming excellence for his own self, the more ready he is to claim all excellence for his nation, his religion, his race or his holy cause.

إن الدين لا يردع الإنسان عن عمل يشتهي أن يقوم به الا بمقدار ضئيل. فتعاليم الدين يفسرها الانسان ويتأولها حسب ما تشتهي نفسه. وقد رأينا القران والحديث مرجعا لكثير من الأعمال المتناقضة التي قام بها المتنازعون في عصر صدر الاسلام..

الحنين إلى الجنة إذاً هو رغبة الإنسان في ألًا يكون إنساناً.

كان ذلك تلميحاً إلى العبارة الموسيقية الأخيرة من رباعية بيتهوڤن الأخيرة التي تتألف من هاتين الفكرتين: أليس من ذلك بدُّ؟ ليس من ذلك بدّ. ولكي يكون معنى هذه الكلمات واضحاً جلياً، دوّن بيتهوڤن في مطلع العبارة الموسيقية الأخيرة الكلمات التالية: «القرار الموزون بخطورة».

هل صحيح أنه يجب علينا أن نرفع صوتنا حين يُسكت أحدهم رجلاً؟ نعم.

سألها ماذا بإمكانه أن يقدم لها: خمر؟ لا، لا، لم تكن راغبة في الخمر. إذا كان هناك شيء ترغب في شربه، فسيكون القهوة.

Happy is the people that is without history. And thrice is the people without sociology.

يبدو أن في الدماغ منطقة خاصة تماماً ويمكن تسميتها بـ«الذاكرة الشعرية»، وهي التي تسجّل كل الأشياء التي سحرتنا أو التي جعلتنا ننفعل أمامها، وكل ما يعطي لحياتنا جمالها. مذ تعرّف توماس إلى تيريزا، لم يعد لأي امرأة الحق في أن تترك أثراً ولو عابراً في هذه المنطقة من دماغه.

من يبغي «الارتقاء» باستمرار، عليه أن يستعد يوماً للإصابة بالدوار. لكن ما هو الدوار؟ أهو الخوف من السقوط؟ ولكن لماذا نصاب بالدوار على شرفة السطح حتى ولو كانت مزودة بدرابزين متين؟ ذلك أن الدوار شيء مختلف عن الخوف من السقوط. إنه صوت الفراغ ينادينا من الأسفل فيجذبنا ويفتننا. إنه الرغبة في السقوط التي نقاومها فيما بعد وقت أصابتنا الذعر.

Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is indeed man’s self-consciousness and self-awareness as long as he has not found his feet in the universe.

قالت: «توماس، لم أعد أقدر. أعرف أن لا حقّ لي في التشكي. مذ رجعت إلى براغ وأنا أحظّر على نفسي الغيرة. لا أريد أن أكون غيورة. ولكني لا أستطيع أن أمنع نفسي عن ذلك. لا قدرة لي. ساعدني، أرجوك».

إنه لمن المضحك-المبكي أن تصير أخلاقنا الحسنة بالتحديد في صالح الشرطة، والسبب أننا لم نتعلم الكذب. فصيغة الأمر: «قل الحقيقة!» التي رسّخها آباؤها وأمهاتنا في أذهاننا، تجعلنا نشعر بطريقةٍ آلية بالعار حين نكذب حتى ولو كنا أمام الشرطي الذي يستجوبنا. وإنه لأسهلَ علينا أن نتخاصم معه وأن نشتمه (وهذا لا معنى له) من أن نكذب عليه صراحة (فيما هذا هو الأمر الوحيد الذي يجدر القيام به).

لم يكن صراخها لهاثاً ولم يكن تأوّهاً، بل صراخ حقيقي. كانت تصرخ بصوت عالٍ إلى درجة أن توماس أبعد رأسه عن وجهها وكأن صوتها الزاعق سيثقب طبلة أذنه. لم يكن هذا الصراخ تعبيراً عن الشبق فالشبق هو التعبئة القصوى للحواس: نراقب الآخر بانتباه بالغ ونسمع أدنى أصواته. لكن صراخ تيريزا كان بخلاف ذلك، يريد أن يُرهق الحواس ويمنعها من الرؤية والسمع. كانت المثالية الساذجة لحبّها هي التي تزعق في داخلها راغبة في إلغاء كل التناقضات، وفي إلغاء ثنائية الروح والجسد، وحتّى في إلغاء الزمن.

كان يخشى في أغلب الأحيان أن يجدها جالسة على أرض الدكان الذي تشتري منه السجائر.

لا أحد يعرف ذلك بصورة أفضل مما يعرف السياسيون. فما أن يروا آلة تصوير على مقربة منهم حتى يهبُّوا راكضين إثر أول طفل يصادفونه فيحملونه في أذرعتهم ويقبلونه في خده. «الكيتش» هو المثال الأعلى لكل السياسيين ولكل الحركات السياسية.

Religion is in a word the system of symbols by means of which society becomes conscious of itself.

لم تكن الروح قادرة على إشاحة بصرها عن شائبة الولادة المستديرة السمراء فوق العانة تماماً؛ كانت الروح ترى في هذه الشائبة ختماً وسمت به الجسد، وكانت تجد أن تحرك عضو غريب على مقربة جداً من هذا الختم المقدس، أمر فيه تجديف.

فهي لم تكن تملك , في مقابلة عالم التفاهة الذي يحيط بها، إلا سلاحاً واحداً: الكتب التي تستعيرها من مكتبة البلدية وخصوصاً الروايات. كانت تقرأ أكداساً منها، ابتداءً بفيلدنغ وانتهاءً بتوماس مان. كانت هذه الروايات تمنحها فرصة للهروب الخيالي، وتقتلعها من حياة لم تكن تعطيها أي شعور بالاكتفاء. لكنها كانت أيضاً تعني لها بصفتها أدوات: كانت تحب أن تتنزه وهي تتأبط كتباً. كانت تميّزها عن الآخرين مثلما كانت العصا تميز المتأنق في القرن الفائت. (المقارنة بين الكتاب وعصا المتأنق ليست صحيحة تماماً. فالعصا التي تميّر المتأنق كانت تجعل منه شخصاً عصرياً و «على الموضة». أمّا الكتاب الذي يميّز تيريزا عن النساء الأخريات فيجعلها خارج زمانها. كانت طبعاً أكثر شباباً من أن تفهم ما هو «قديم الزي» في شخصيتها. كانت تجد المراهقين الذين يتنزهون حولها حاملين ترانزستوارت زاعقة، بُلهاء، ولم يكن يخطر في بالها أنهم عصريون.)

منذ ذلك الحين وكلاهما يغتبط مسبقاً بالنوم سوية. وأميل تقريباً للقول بأن الهدف من الجماع بالنسبة لهما لم يكن النشوة بل النعاس الذي يعقبها. وهي، خاصة، لم تكن تستطيع أن تنام من دونه. لو صدف وبقيت وحيدة في شقتها الصغيرة (التي لم تعد إلا مجرد خدعة) كانت غير قادرة على إغماض جفن طيلة الليل. أما بين ذراعيه فكانت تغفو دائماً مهما تكن درجة اضطرابها. كان يروي من أجلها بصوت خافت قصصاً يبتدعها أو ترّهاتٍ وكلمات مضحكة يعيدها بلهجة رتيبة. كانت هذه الكلمات تتحول في مخيّلتها إلى رؤى مشوّشة تأخذ بيدها إلى الحلم الأول. كان يملك تأثيراً خارقاً على إغفائها وكانت تغفو في الدقيقة التي يقرر هو أن ينتقيها.

عندما هدأ صراخها، نامت قرب توماس وأمسكت بيده طوال الليل. منذ كانت في الثامنة وهي تغفو جامعة يديها ومتخيلة أنها تمسك الرجل الذي تحبه، رجل حياتها. كان مفهوماً إذاً أن تشد بهذا العزم على يد توماس.

عندها تذكر توماس حكاية أُوديب. أُوديب أيضاً لم يكن عارفاً بأنه يضاجع أمه، ومع ذلك فإنه عندما عرف بالأمر لم يجد نفسه بريئاً. ولم يستطع تحمل مشهد الشقاء الذي سببه جهله ففقأ عينيه وغادر «ثيب» وهو أعمى. كان توماس يسمع زعيق الشيوعيين وهم يدافعون عن براءة ذمتهم، ويفكر: بسبب جهلكم فقد هذا البلد حريته لقرون عديدة مقبلة وتزعقون قائلين بأنكم أبرياء؟ كيف تجرؤون بعد على النظر حواليكم؟ كيف، ألم تصابوا بالهلع؟ أو لا عيون لديكم لتبصروا! لو كانت عندكم عيون حقاً لكنتم فقأتموها وغادرتم «ثيب»! كانت هذه المقارنة تروق له إلى حد أنه كان يستعملها مراراً في أحاديثه مع أصدقائه، وكان يعبّر عنها بعبارات أكثر لذعاً وأكثر فصاحة.

من البديهي أنها لا تعي هذه الحقيقة، وهذا شيء مفهوم: فالهدف الذي نلاحقه محجوب عنا دائماً . . حين ترغب فتاة شابة في الزواج فهي ترغب في شيء تجهله تماماً. والشاب الذي يركض وراء المجد لا يملك أدنى فكرة عن المجد. لذلك، فإن الشيء الذي يعطي معنى لتصرفاتنا شيء نجهله تماماً. سابينا أيضاً تجهل ما هو الهدف من رغبتها في الخيانة. أيكون الهدف منها الوصول إلى الخفة غير المحتملة للكائن؟ منذ رحيلها عن جنيف وهي تقترب أكثر فأكثر من هذا الهدف.

أضافت المصوّر بتحبّب أمومي : «أجساد عارية. ولكن هذا أمر طبيعي جداً! وكل ما هو طبيعي جميل!».

الخيانة. منذ طفولتنا والوالد ومعلم المدرسة يكرران على مسامعنا بأنها أفظع شيء في الوجود.

Also, I do seem attracted to trash, as if the clue--the clue--lies there. I'm always ferreting out elliptical points, odd angles. What I write doesn't make a whole lot of sense. There is fun and religion and psychotic horror strewn about like a bunch of hats. Also, there is a social or sociological drift--rather than toward the hard sciences, the overall impression is childish but interesting.

كان بإمكان آنّا أن تنهي حياتها بطريقة أخرى مختلفة تماماً. ولكن حافز المحطة والموت، هذا الحافز الذي لا يُنسى لاقترانه ببداية الحب، كان يجذبها في لحظات اليأس، بجماله القائم. فالإنسان ينسج حياته على غير علم منه وفقاً لقوانين الجمال حتى في لحظات اليأس الأكثر قتامة. لا يمكن إذاً أن يأخذ أحد على رواية افتتانها بالاتفاق الغامض للصدف. (مثلاً، تلاقي فرونسكي وآنّـا والرصيف والموت أو تلاقي بيتهوڤن وتوماس وتيريزا وكأس الكونياك). لكن يمكن أن يؤخذ بِحقٍّ على الإنسان حين يُعمي عينيه عن هذه الصدفْ فيحرم بالتالي حياته من بُعد الجمال.

We criticize Americans for not being able either to analyse or conceptualize. But this is a wrong-headed critique. It is we who imagine that everything culminates in transcendence, and that nothing exists which has not been conceptualized. Not only do they care little for such a view, but their perspective is the very opposite: it is not conceptualizing reality, but realizing concepts and materializing ideas, that interests them. The ideas of the religion and enlightened morality of the eighteenth century certainly, but also dreams, scientific values, and sexual perversions. Materializing freedom, but also the unconscious. Our phantasies around space and fiction, but also our phantasies of sincerity and virtue, or our mad dreams of technicity. Everything that has been dreamt on this side of the Atlantic has a chance of being realized on the other. They build the real out of ideas. We transform the real into ideas, or into ideology.

عادت تيريزا إلى النوم من جديد. ولكنه هو لم يستطع النوم. كان يتخيلها ميتة وترى أحلاماً رهيبة. ولم يكن في استطاعته إيقاظها لأنها ميتة. نعم، هذا هو الموت: أن تنام تيريزا وترى أحلاماً فظيعة دون أن يتمكن من إيقاظها.

In the midst of a culture that is rationally organized for a vocational workaday life, there is hardly any room for the cultivation of acosmic brotherliness, unless it is among strata who are economically carefree. Under the technical and social conditions of rational culture, an imitation of the life of Buddha, Jesus, or Francis seems condemned to failure for purely external reasons.

زد على ذلك أن هذه الأحلام، إلى فصاحتها، كانت جميلة. لقد أغفل فرويد هذا الجانب في نظريته عن الأحلام. فالحلم ليس فقط بلاغاً (بلاغاً مرموزاً عند الاقتضاء) بل هو أيضاً نشاط جمالي ولعبة للخيال. وهذه اللعبة هي بحد ذاتها قيمة. فالحلم هو البرهان على أن التخيل وتصوّر ما ليس له وجود، هو إحدى الحاجات الأساسية للإنسان، وهنا يكمن أصل الخطر الخادع الكامن في الحلم. فلو أن الحلم ليس جميلاً، لأمكننا نسيانه بسهولة. لذلك، كانت تيريزا ترجع باستمرار إلى أحلامها وتعيدها في مخيلتها وتختلق منها أساطير. أمّا توماس فكان يعيش في كنف السحر المنوّم، سحر الجمال الأليم لأحلام تيريزا.

في سفر التكوين، عهد الله إلى الإنسان بالسيادة على الحيوانات. وبإمكاننا أن نفسر ذلك قائلين إن الله قد أعار هذه السلطة له. الإنسان ليس مالك الكوكب بل وكيله وعليه ذات يوم أن يقدم كشفاً لحسابه. ديكارت ذهب أبعد من ذلك في هذا المنحى: جعل الإنسان «سيد الطبيعة ومالكها». وهو منطقي جداً بالتأكيد فيما يتعلق بنفيه لوجود الروح عند الحيوانات. فحسب ما يقول ديكارت، الإنسان هو المالك والسيد فيما الحيوان ليس إلا مسيّراً وآلة حية، أو ما يمسيه بال «ماشينا-أنيماتا». عندما يئن الحيوان فالأمر لا يتعلق بشكوى بل بصرير تطلقه آلة تسير بشكل سيئ. فحين تئز عجلة عربة فهذا لا يعني أن العربة تتألم بل لأنها تحتاج إلى تشحيم. وبالطريقة ذاتها يجب أن يُفسّر نحيب الحيوان. ويجب ألا نشفق على كلب يُشرَّح وهو حيّ في مختبر.

ثم قال «لا أعرف حقاً ما إذا كان هذا المقال قد ساعد أحداً ما. ولكني خلال عملي كجرّاح أنقذت حياة أناس كثيرين». ساد صمت جديد ثم قطعه قائلاً: «الأفكار أيضاً يمكنها أن تنقذ الحياة».

البراز إذاً هو مسألة لاهوتية أكثر صعوبة من مسألة الشر. فالله قد أعطى الحرية للإنسان وبذلك يمكننا أن نسلّم بأن الله ليس مسؤولاً عن جرائم البشر.

Our beliefs affect our behavior towards others. And that makes our beliefs, not just a personal question, but an ethical one.

بإمكان الكوكب أن يتهاوى على أثر تفجير القنابل. ويمكن للوطن أن ينهبه كل يوم مختلس جديد، ويمكن لسكان الحي جميعهم أن يُساقوا إلى كتيبة الإعدام. يمكنه أن يتحمل كل هذا بسهولة أكبر مما يجرؤ على القول، ولكنه غير قادر على تحمل الحزن الذي يسببه حلم واحد من أحلام تيريزا.

لقاءه بتيريزا كان حصيلة صدف ست بعيدة الاحتمال. لكن، خلافاً لذلك أفلا تقاس أهمية حدث، وكثرة معانيه بارتباطه بأكبر عدد ممكن من الصدف؟ وحدها الصدفة يمكن أن تكون ذات مغزى. فما يحدث بالضرورة، ما هو متوقع ويتكرر يومياً يبقى شيئاً أبكم. وحدها الصدفة ناطقة. نسعى لأن نقرأ فيها كما يقرأ الغجريون في الرسوم التي يخطها ثفل القهوة في مقر الفنجان.

They all know the truth, that there are only three subjects worth talking about. At least here in these parts," he says, "The weather, which, as they're farmers, affects everything else. Dying and birthing, of both people and animals. And what we eat - this last item comprising what we ate the day before and what we're planning to eat tomorrow. And all three of these major subjects encompass, in one way or another, philosophy, psychology, sociology, anthropology, the physical sciences, history, art, literature, and religion. We get around to sparring about all that counts in life but we usually do it while we're talking about food, it being a subject inseparable from every other subject. It's the table and the bed that count in life. And everything else we do, we do so we can get back to the table, back to the bed.

أثناء النهار، كانت تيريزا تحاول جاهدة (لكن دون أن تتمكن فعلاً) لأن تصدق ما يقوله توماس وأن تكون سعيدة كما فعلت حتى الآن. غير أن الغيرة المكبوتة في النهار كانت تظهر بشكل أكثر عنفاً في أحلامها التي تنتهي دائماً بنحيب لا ينقطع إلا حين يوقظها توماس. كانت أحلامها تتكرر على شكل حلقات متنوعة أو مسلسلٍ تلفزيوني. ثمة حلو كان يتكرر باستمرار على سبيل المثال، وهو حلم الهررة التي تقفز إلى وجهها مُنشبة مخالبها في جلدها. في الحقيقة يمكن تفسير هذا الحلم بسهولة: الهرة في اللغة التشيكية كلمة عامية تعني فتاة جميلة. كانت تيريزا إذاً تشعر أنها مهددة من النساء، كل النساء. فالنساء كلُّهن عشيقات محتملات لتوماس ولهذا فهي تخاف منهن.

ماذا بقي من محتضري كمبوديا؟ صورة كبيرة للنجمة الأميركية تحمل بين ذراعيها طفلاً أصفر. ماذا بقي من توماس؟ كتابةُ: أراد مملكة الله على الأرض. ماذا بقي من بيتهوڤن؟ رجل مقطب الوجه، مشعث الشعر كمجنون وينطق بصوت مكتئب «Esmuss Sein» «ليس من ذلك بدّ». ماذا بقي من فرانز؟ كتابةُ: بعد طول ضلال، العودة. وهكذا دواليك، وهكذا دواليك. قبل أن نُنسَى نتحول إلى «كيتش». «الكيتش» هو محطة اتصال بين الكائن والنسيان.

تُرى كيف كان هذا ممكناً؟ قبل ذلك بقليل كانت القبعة التي تضعها على رأسها تهمُّ بأن تكون مجرد مزحة. ماذا! ألا تفصل المضحك عن المثير غير خطوة واحدة؟

I had heard for years of Muslim hospitality, but one couldn't quite imagine such warmth.

جاء في بداية سفر التكوين أن الله خلق الإنسان وجعله يتسلط على الطيور والأسماك والماشية. بطبيعة الحال، الحق في سفك دم أيّلٍ أو بقرة هو الشيء الوحيد الذي اتفقت عليه الإنسانية جمعاء بتآخٍ حتى خلال الحروب الأكثر دموية. قد يبدو لنا هذا الحق بديهياً لأننا نعتبر أنفسنا في قمة السلم. ولكن يكفي أن يتدخل شخص شخص ثالث في اللعبة، زائر آتٍ مثلاً من كوكب آخر وقد أمره الله: «سوف تكون لك سلطة على كائنات الكواكب الأخرى كافة»، فتصبح عندئذ بداهة التكوين موضع شك في الحال

تجاوزت مدة التمثيلية المرتجلة الحدود. كان فرانز يجد أن هذه الملهاة (التي كان يقرّ بأنها ساحرة على كل حال) قد طالت أكثر من اللازم. فأمسك القبعة الرجالية بين أصبعيه وانتزعها عن رأس سابينا وهو يبتسم، ثم علقها فوق القاعدة. . كان الأمر كمن يمحو شاربين رسمهما ولد عفريت على صورة مريم العذراء.

Your frequent claim that we must understand religious belief as a “social construct,” produced by “societal causes,” dependent upon “social and cultural institutions,” admitting of “sociological questions,” and the like, while it will warm the hearts of most anthropologists, is either trivially true or obscurantist. It is part and parcel of the double standard that so worries me—the demolition of which is the explicit aim of The Reason Project. Epidemiology is also a “social construct” with “societal causes,” etc.—but this doesn’t mean that the germ theory of disease isn’t true or that any rival “construct”—like one suggesting that child rape will cure AIDS—isn’t a dangerous, deplorable, and unnecessary eruption of primeval stupidity. We either have good reasons or bad reasons for what we believe; we can be open to evidence and argument, or we can be closed; we can tolerate (and even seek) criticism of our most cherished views, or we can hide behind authority, sanctity, and dogma. The main reason why children are still raised to think that the universe is 6,000 years old is not because religion as a “social institution” hasn’t been appropriately coddled and cajoled, but because polite people (and scientists terrified of losing their funding) haven’t laughed this belief off the face of the earth. We did not lose a decade of progress on stem-cell research in the United States because of religion as a “social construct”; we lost it because of the behavioural and emotional consequences of a specific belief. If there were a line in the book of Genesis that read – “The soul enters the womb on the hundredth day (you idiots)” – we wouldn’t have lost a step on stem-cell research, and there would not be a Christian or Jew anywhere who would worry about souls in Petri dishes suffering the torments of the damned. The beliefs currently rattling around in the heads of human beings are some of the most potent forces on earth; some of the craziest and most divisive of these are “religious,” and so-dubbed they are treated with absurd deference, even in the halls of science; this is a very bad combination—that is my point.

كانت تخاف من أن يُغلق عليها داخل نعش وأن تُدلَّى في أرض أميركا. لذلك كتبت وصية اشترطت فيها أن تُحرق جثتها بعد موتها، وأن يُنثر رمادها في الهواء. تيريزا وتوماس ماتا تحت شعار الثقل. أما هي فأرادت أن تموت تحت شعار الخفة. سوف تصير أخف من الهواء. وحسب رأي بارمينيد، فإن موتها تحوّل من السلبي إلى الإيجابي.

There is more than one evolution. There are cosmological, geological, biological and sociological evolutions. The scientists of evolution say so. When I think about man, religion and art, I do not see any of those evolutions.

وأن هناك أيضاً وأيضاً كواكب أخرى حيث يمكن للجنس البشري أن يلد من جديد مرتقياً في كل مرة درجةً (أي حياة) على سُلَّم الكمال. تلك هي الفكرة التي يكوّنها توماس عن العَوْد الأبدي. نحن أيضاً سكان هذه الأرض (أي الكوكب رقم واحد، كوكب انعدام الخبرة)، ليس في إمكاننا طبعاً إلا أن نكوّن فكرة غامضة جدًا عما سيصير بحال الإنسان في الكواكب الأخرى. تُرى هل سيكون أكثر ثقلاً؟ هل سيكون الكمال في متناول يده؟ وهل سيتمكن من الوصول إليه بواسطة التكرار؟ ضمن أفق هذه اليوطوبيا وحده، يمكن لمفهومي التشاؤم والتفاؤل أن يكون لهما معنى: فالمتفائل هو ذلك الذي يتصور أن التاريخ الإنساني سيكون أقل ديمومة على الكوكب رقم ٥. والمتشائم هو ذلك الذي لا يصدّق هذا الأمر.

scientific research can flourish only in alliance with some religion or ideology. The ideology justifies the costs of the research. In exchange, the ideology influences the scientific agenda and determines what to do with the discoveries. Hence in order to comprehend how humankind has reached Alamogordo and the moon – rather than any number of alternative destinations – it is not enough to survey the achievements of physicists, biologists and sociologists. We have to take into account the ideological, political and economic forces that shaped physics, biology and sociology, pushing them in certain directions while neglecting others.

يعتبر تفتيش المواطنين ومراقبتهم من النشاطات الاجتماعية الأساسية والدائمة في البلدان الشيوعية. فَلِكي ينال رسام حقّه في إقامة معرض أو مواطنٌ على تأشيرة لقضاء عطلته على الشاطئ، أو لكي تتم الموافقة على انضمام لاعب كرة إلى الفريق الوطني، يجب أن تجتمع أصلاً كل أنواع التقارير والشهادات التي تخصهم، (شهادة الناطور وزملاء العمل والشرطة وخلية موظّفون معدّون لهذه المهمة. أما ما يقال في هذه التصاريح فلا علاقة له البتة بموهبة المواطن في الرسم أو في لعب الكرة، ولا علاقة له بما إذا كانت تسمح له حالته الصحية بقضاء عطلة على الشاطئ. هناك أمر واحد يهم وهو ما يسمّى «بالخلفية السياسية للمواطن» (أي ماذا يقول المواطن، بماذا يفكر، كيف يتصرف، هل يشارك في الاجتماعات أو في التظاهرات في الأول من إيار). وبما أن كل شيء (الحياة اليومية والترقية والعطلات) مرتبط بالطريقة التي يقيّمون فيها سلوك المواطن، فإن الجميع مضطرون إذاً، (من أجل اللعب مع الفريق الوطني أو للتمكن من إقامة معرض، أو لقضاء عطلة على شاطئ البحر) للتصرف بطريقة تجعل علاماتهم حسنة.

At age fifteen, Martin entered Morehouse College in an accelerated program during World War II. As the U.S. pledged to fight fascism, racism, anti-Semitism, and colonialism, King was profoundly influenced through courses in sociology, history, philosophy, literature, and religion.

في مملكة «الكيتش» التوتاليتارية تعطى الإجابات مسبقاً محرِّمة بذلك أي سؤال جديد. ينتج عن ذلك أن الإنسان الذي يتساءل هو العدو الحقيقي لـ «الكيتش». السؤال هو مثل مسكين يمزق القماشة المرسومة للديكور فيصبح في المستطاع رؤية ما يختبئ خلفها. هكذا شرحت سابينا لتيريزا معنى لوحاتها: من الأمام الكذب الصارخ، ومن الخلف الحقيقة التي لا يُدرك كنهها. إلا أن هؤلاء الذين يناضلون ضد الأنظمة المسمّاة توتاليتارية قلَّما يمكنهم النضال من خلال أسئلة وشكوك. فهُم أيضاً بحاجة إلى قناعتهم وإلى حقيقتهم البسيطة التي يفترض أن يفهمها أكبر عدد ممكن من الناس وأن تحدث إفرازاً دمْعياً جماعياً.

ينتج عن ذلك أن الوفاق التام مع الكائن يتخذ مثاله الأعلى عالماً يُنتفى منه البراز، ويتصرف كل واحد فيه وكأن البراز غير موجود. هذا المثال الجمالي يدعى «الكيتش». «كيتش» هي كلمة ألمانية ظهرت في أواسط القرن التاسع عشر العاطفي، ثم انتشرت بعد ذلك في جميع اللغات. ولكن استعمالها بكثرة أزال دلالتها الميتافيزيقية الأصلية وهي: كلمة كيتش في الأساس نفي مطلق للبراز. وبالمعنى الحرفي كما بالمعنى المجازي «الكيتش» تطرح جانباً كل ما هو غير مقبول في الوجود الإنساني.

عندما كان سيمون يفكر في ذلك اللقاء كان يشعر بالخجل من وَهَله. من المؤكد أنه لم يُعجب أباه. أما هو فأُعجب بأبيه. كان يتذكر كل كلمة تفوّه بها مستصوباً مواقفه أكثر فأكثر. هناك جملة على الأخص علقت بذاكرته: «إدانة هؤلاء الذين لا يعرفون ماذا يفعلون، عمل بربري». وعندما وضع عمّ صديقته كتاب التوراة بين يديه، تأثر بكلمات يسوع التي تقول: «إغفر لهم لأنهم لا يدرون ماذا يفعلون». كان يعرف أن أباه ملحد ولكن التشابه بين الجملتين كان بالنسبة له وكأنه رمز خفي يعني أن أباه يستحسن الطريق التي اختارها.

A fundamentalist to somebody who absolutely knows what’s right because it’s written in a holy book.

religion has been the historically most widespread and effective instrumentality of legitimation.

The Bolshevists persistently tell us that religion is opium for the people. Marxism is indeed opium for those who might take to thinking and must therefore be weaned from it.

Ibn Khaldūn is frequently called the world’s first sociologist.

The F.B.I. and the C.I.A. and the I.R.S. all combined can't turn up a thing I got, beyond a car to drive and a seven-room house to live in.

I hadn't hustled in the streets for years for nothing. I knew when I was being set up.

في مجتمع تتعايش فيه تيارات شتّى وحيث يمكن لتأثير هذه التيارات أن يُمحى أو يحدّ بشكل متناوب، يبقى في المستطاع الإفلات تقريباً من محاكم «الكيتش». ويمكن للفرد عندئذ أن يحافظ على تميزه، وللفنان أن يخلق أعمالاً فنيّة مدهشة. ولكن في البلدان التي يستأثر فيها حزب سياسي بالسلطة كلها، نجد أنفسنا حالاً في مملكة «الكيتش» الدكتاتورية. إذا كنت أقول ديكتاتورية فإني أقصد بذلك أن كل ما يطعن بـ «الكيتش» ملغىً من الحياة: كل إظهار للفردية، (لأن أي نشاز هو بصفة في وجه الأخوّة الباسمة) وكلّ شك (لأن من يبدأ بالشك في التفاصيل الصغيرة يتوصل في نهاية المطاف لأن يشك في الحياة بحد ذاتها). كذلك السخرية (لأن كل شيء في مملكة «الكيتش» يؤخذ على محمل الجد)، وأيضاً الأم التي هجرت عائلتها، أو الرجل الذي يفضّل الرجال على النساء مهدداً بذلك الشعار المقدس «تناسلو واملاؤا الأرض». انطلاقاً من وجهة النظر هذه، فإن ما يسمى بـ «الغولاغ» يمكن اعتباره ثغرة عفنة يرمي فيها «الكيتش» التوتاليتاري بأوساخه.

Looking at Great-Great Grandpa Baldwin's photograph, I think to myself: You've finally done it. It took four generations, but you've finally goddamned done it. Gotten that war against reason and uppity secularists you always wanted. Gotten even for the Scopes trial, which they say was one of many burrs under your saddle until your last breath. Well, rejoice, old man, because your tribes have gathered around America's oldest magical hairball of ignorance and superstition, Christian fundamentalism, and their numbers have enabled them to suck so much oxygen out of the political atmosphere that they are now acknowledged as a mainstream force in politics. Episcopalians, Jews, and affluent suburban Methodists and Catholics, they are all now scratching their heads, sweating, and swearing loudly that this pack of lower-class zealots cannot possibly represent the mainstream--not the mainstream they learned about in their fancy sociology classes or were so comfortably reassured about by media commentators who were people like themselves. Goodnight, Grandpa Baldwin. I'll toast you from hell.

Philosophy claims to show the true nature of this world, and in a sense the claim is justified. Philosophy unmasks religion as the general theory of this inverted world, as its encyclopaedic guide, its popular logic, its “spiritual point d’honneur,” and its moral justification. Philosophy liberates man from nonphilosophy, i.e., from fantastic ideas uncritically accepted. Consequently philosophy is the spiritual quintessence of its epoch.

In worldly terms, she was totally innocent; Eve before the fall, with no knowledge of good and evil. She made one realize how necessary the Fall was; without it, there would have been no human drama, and so no literature, no art, no suffering, no religion, no laughter, no joy, no sin and no redemption. Only camera work (towards which Mrs. Dobbs's painting was reaching) and sociology (which her sister, Beatrice Webb, may be said to have invented).

According to [Dr. Erich] Fromm, what motivates so many Believers, regardless of religious affiliation, is the image of the Divine, an image that many Believers try to emulate (e.g. Imitatio Christi). Fromm states that within a humanistic religion, “God is the image of man’s [and/or woman’s] higher self, a symbol of what man [or woman] potentially is or ought to become” but “in an authoritarian religion, God becomes the sole possessor” of human’s reason and love.

What do you need the mythology? … Rituals evoke it. Consider the position of judges in our society, which Campbell saw in mythological, not sociological, terms. If this position were just a role, the judge could wear a gray suit to court instead of the magisterial black robe. For the law to hold authority beyond mere coercion, the power of the judge must be ritualized, mythologized. So must much of life today, Campbell said, from religion and war to love and death.

كانت القبعة تصير إذاً لازمة موسيقية في المقطوعة التي هي حياة سابينا. كانت هذه اللازمة تتكرر دائماً وأبداً آخذة في كل مرة معنى جديداً. وكانت هذه المعاني تمر كلها عبر القبعة الرجالية كما يمر الماء في مجرى النهر. وأستطيع القول إن مجرى النهر هذا مشابه لمجرى نهر هيراقليط: «إننا لا نستحم مرتين في النهر نفسه». كانت سابينا ترى أن القبعة الرجالية مجرى نهر يسيل فيه كل مرة نهر آخر، نهر «لغوي آخر»، حيث يثير الشيئ نفسه كل مرة معنى جديداً، ولكن هذا المعنى الجديد كان يرجّع (مثل صدىً أو موكب أصداء) كل المعاني السابقة . . فتظنُّ حينها كل تجربة جديدة معيوشة بإيقاع أكثر غنى.

Rida was one of the first Muslims to advocate the establishment of a fully modernized but fully Islamic state, based on the reformed Shariah. He wanted to establish a college where students could be introduced to the study of international law, sociology, world history, the scientific study of religion, and modern science, at the same time as they studied fiqh. This would ensure that Islamic jurisprudence would develop in a truly modern context that would wed the traditions of East and West, and make the Shariah, an agrarian law code, compatible with the new type of society that the West had evolved.

O comportamento ritual não só revela realidades práticas e mundanas, é também um teatro vivo da psicologia colectiva e uma das mais ricas expressões da ideologia e crenças - mentalidade - de uma sociedade. Afinal de contas, como os antropólogos notaram, a religião é mais do que um padrão de relações sociais: é uma expressão da capacidade humana para imaginar a estrutura da sociedade. O ritual religioso não é apenas construção cultural: é uma forma de cognição que constrói modelos de realidade e paradigmas de comportamento. E dentro deste processo pelo qual a realidade é definida, o ritual da morte joga um papel central.

Whiteness isn’t antithetical to non-whiteness, it’s contingent on it. Creative writing is ethnic studies, is gender and sexual studies, is political science, is religion, is history, is sociology. The dichotomy is a sham. All art is political art. Everything less is denial, denial being the most political of all.

The feminine mystique, elevated by Freudian theory into a scientific religion, sounded a single, overprotective, life-restricting, future-denying note for women. Girls who grew up playing baseball, baby-sitting, mastering geometry -- almost independent enough, almost resourceful enough, to meet the problems of the fission-fusion era -- were told by the most advanced thinkers of our time to go back and live their lives as if they were Noras, restricted to the doll's house by Victorian prejudice. And their own respect and awe for the authority of science -- anthropology, sociology, psychology share that authority now -- kept them from questioning the feminine mystique.

mythological, not sociological, terms. If this position were just a role, the judge could wear a gray suit to court instead of the magisterial black robe. For the law to hold authority beyond mere coercion, the power of the judge must be ritualized, mythologized. So must much of life today, Campbell said, from religion and war to love and death.

Ibn Khaldūn is frequently called the world’s first sociologist. To use a phrase often applied to 19th-century European thinkers, he tried to uncover the ‘motor of history’. Hegel famously found this motor in the dialectical movement of ideas; Marx found it in the internal contradictions of the economic order. Ibn Khaldūn found it in the dynamics of al ‘așabiyyah, a term usually translated as “group-feeling,” “esprit de corps,” or “spirit of kinship.

Jürgen Habermas currently ranks as one of the most influential philosophers in the world. Bridging continental and Anglo-American traditions of thought, he has engaged in debates with thinkers as diverse as Gadamer and Putnam, Foucault and Rawls, Derrida and Brandom. His extensive written work addresses topics stretching from social-political theory to aesthetics, epistemology and language to philosophy of religion, and his ideas have significantly influenced not only philosophy but also political-legal thought, sociology, communication studies, argumentation theory and rhetoric, developmental psychology and theology.

PHYSIOLOGY 1. Sex 2. Age 3. Height and weight 4. Color of hair, eyes, skin 5. Posture 6. Appearance: good-looking, over- or underweight, clean, neat, pleasant, untidy. Shape of head, face, limbs. 7. Defects: deformities, abnormalities, birthmarks. Diseases. 8. Heredity SOCIOLOGY 1. Class: lower, middle, upper. 2. Occupation: type of work, hours of work, income, condition of work, union or nonunion, attitude toward organization, suitability for work. 3. Education: amount, kind of schools, marks, favorite subjects, poorest subjects, aptitudes. 4. Home life: parents living, earning power, orphan, parents separated or divorced, parents’ habits, parents’ mental development, parents’ vices, neglect. Character’s marital status. 5. Religion 6. Race, nationality 7. Place in community: leader among friends, clubs, sports. 8. Political affiliations 9. Amusements, hobbies: books, newspapers, magazines he reads. PSYCHOLOGY 1. Sex life, moral standards 2. Personal premise, ambition 3. Frustrations, chief disappointments 4. Temperament: choleric, easygoing, pessimistic, optimistic. 5. Attitude toward life: resigned, militant, defeatist. 6. Complexes: obsessions, inhibitions, superstitions, phobias. 7. Extrovert, introvert, ambivert 8. Abilities: languages, talents. 9. Qualities: imagination, judgment, taste, poise. 10. I.Q.

Weber’s thesis is now more than a century old and nearly all of the introductory sociology textbooks (but not mine) take it to be a settled fact that the rise of industrial capitalism took place initially in predominantly Protestant countries and that within nations having both Protestants and Catholics, the Protestants dominated the capitalist economy. Moreover, a number of sociologists have attempted to account for the modernization of various non-Western societies by ‘finding’ an equivalent of the Protestant Ethic in their local religions12 – Robert Bellah claimed that such an ethic existed in Japan’s forms of Buddhism, Confucianism and Shinto during the Tokugawa era.13 Nevertheless, it’s all a myth!

know the truth, that there are only three subjects worth talking about. At least here in these parts,” he says. “The weather, which, as they’re farmers, affects everything else. Dying and birthing, of both people and animals. And what we eat—this last item comprising what we ate the day before and what we’re planning to eat tomorrow. And all three of these major subjects encompass, in one way or another, philosophy, psychology, sociology, anthropology, the physical sciences, history, art, literature, and religion. We get around to sparring about all that counts in a life but we usually do it while we’re talking about food, it being a subject inseparable from every other subject. It’s the table and the bed that count in life. And everything else we do, we do so we can get back to the table, back to the bed.

This generation grew up constantly reminded that they lived in the greatest country in the world, the land of the free, with liberty and justice for all its citizens. Yet, as they matured, members of this generation found a disturbing disparity between this popular American self-image and actual reality. They found that many people in this land—women and certain racial minorities—were, by law and custom, definitely not free. By the sixties the new generation was inspecting closely, and many were finding other disturbing aspects of the United States’ self-image—for instance, a blind patriotism that expected young people to go into a foreign land to fight a political war that had no clearly expressed purpose and no prospect of victory. Just as disturbing was the culture’s spiritual practice. The materialism of the previous four hundred years had pushed the mystery of life, and death, far into the background. Many found the churches and synagogues full of pompous and meaningless ritual. Attendance seemed more social than spiritual, and the members too restricted by a sense of how they might be perceived and judged by their onlooking peers. As the vision progressed, I could tell that the new generation’s tendency to analyze and judge arose from a deep-seated intuition that there was more to life than the old material reality took into account. The new generation sensed new spiritual meaning just beyond the horizon, and they began to explore other, lesser known religions and spiritual points of view. For the first time the Eastern religions were understood in great numbers, serving to validate the mass intuition that spiritual perception was an inner experience, a shift in awareness that changed forever one’s sense of identity and purpose. Similarly the Jewish Cabalist writings and the Western Christian mystics, such as Meister Eckehart and Teilhard de Chardin, provided other intriguing descriptions of a deeper spirituality. At the same time, information was surfacing from the human sciences—sociology, psychiatry, psychology, and anthropology—as well as from modern physics, that cast new light on the nature of human consciousness and creativity. This cumulation of thought, together with the perspective provided by the East, gradually began to crystallize into what was later called the Human Potential Movement, the emerging belief that human beings were presently actualizing only a small portion of their vast physical, psychological, and spiritual potential I watched as, over the course of several decades, this information and the spiritual experience it spawned grew into a critical mass of awareness, a leap in consciousness from which we began to formulate a new view of what living a human life was all about,

A film, The Lost Continent, throws a clear light on the current myth of exoticism. It is a big documentary on 'the East', the pretext of which is some undefined ethnographic expedition, evidently false, incidentally, led by three or four Italians into the Malay archipelago. The film is euphoric, everything in it is easy, innocent. Our explorers are good fellows, who fill up their leisure time with child-like amusements: they play with their mascot, a little bear (a mascot is indispensable in all expeditions: no film about the polar region is without its tame seal, no documentary on the tropics is without its monkey), or they comically upset a dish of spaghetti on the deck. Which means that these good people, anthropologists though they are, don't bother much with historical or sociological problems. Penetrating the Orient never means more for them than a little trip in a boat, on an azure sea, in an essentially sunny country. And this same Orient which has today become the political centre of the world we see here all flattened, made smooth and gaudily coloured like an old-fashioned postcard. The device which produces irresponsibility is clear: colouring the world is always a means of denying it (and perhaps one should at this point begin an inquiry into the use of colour in the cinema). Deprived of all substance, driven back into colour, disembodied through the very glamour of the 'images', the Orient is ready for the spiriting away which the film has in store for it. What with the bear as a mascot and the droll spaghetti, our studio anthropologists will have no trouble in postulating an Orient which is exotic in form, while being in reality profoundly similar to the Occident, at least the Occident of spiritualist thought. Orientals have religions of their own? Never mind, these variations matter very little compared to the basic unity of idealism. Every rite is thus made at once specific and eternal, promoted at one stroke into a piquant spectacle and a quasi-Christian symbol. ...If we are concerned with fisherman, it is not the type of fishing which is whown; but rather, drowned in a garish sunset and eternalized, a romantic essense of the fisherman, presented not as a workman dependent by his technique and his gains on a definite society, but rather as the theme of an eternal condition, in which man is far away and exposed to the perils of the sea, and woman weeping and praying at home. The same applies to refugees, a long procession of which is shown at the beginning, coming down a mountain: to identify them is of course unnecessary: they are eternal essences of refugees, which it is in the nature of the East to produce.

Before the twentieth century, ideology - as opposed to religion - did not kill people by the millions and tens of millions. The stakes were not thought to be worth it. Such enthusiasm for mass murder awaited the combination of aristocratic militarism, really-existing socialism, and fascism. Thus it was only in the twentieth century that utopian aspirations about how the economy should be organized led nations and global movements to build dystopias to try to bring the utopian future closer. And then they turned around and justified the dystopia: compromises must be made, and this is as good as it is going to get. My view is that too much mental and historical energy has been spent parsing differences between movements that are justly classified as dystopian, and even totalitarian, in aspiration. Time spent on such a task is time wasted, given their commonalities - if not in formal doctrine, then at least in modes of operation. The guards of Auschwitz, Majdanek, Treblinka, Dachau, and the rest were very like the guards of the Gulag Archipelago. Rather, mental and historical energy should be focused on where these movements got their energy. Why was the world unable to offer people a society in which they could live good lives? Why was a total reconfiguration necessary? Karl Polanyi saw fascism and socialism as reactions against the market society's inability or unwillingness to satisfy people's Polanyian rights. It could not guarantee them a comfortable community in which to live because the use to which land was put had to pass a profitability test. It could not offer them an income commensurate with what they deserved because the wage paid to their occupation had to pass a profitability test. And it could not offer them stable employment because the financing to support whatever value chain they were embedded in also had to pass a profitability test. These failures all gave energy to the thought that there needed to be a fundamental reconfiguration of economy and society that would respect people's Polanyian rights. And the hope of millions was that fascism and really-existing socialism would do so. Instead, both turned out to erase, in brutal and absolute ways, people's rights, and people's lives, by the millions. So why were people so gullible? The German socialist Rosa Luxemburg in 1919 could see the path Lenin was embarked upon and called it 'a brutalization of public life: attempted assassinations, shooting of hostages, etc.' The German liberal Max Weber, writing in 1918, could also foresee what would become of Lenin's sociological experiment, saying it would end 'in a laboratory with heaps of human corpses.' Similarly, the British diplomat Eric Phipps wrote in 1935 that if Britain were to take Hitler's Mein Kampf seriously and literally, 'we should logically be bound to adopt the policy of a "preventive" war.' The dangers of a fascist turn were clear. The unlikelihood of success at even slouching toward a good society of those who took that turn ought to have been obvious. Utopian faith is a helluva drug.

Religion provides a feeling that life is ultimately meaningful. It does so by explaining coherently and compellingly what transcends or overshadows everyday life, in ways that other aspects of culture (such as an educational system or a belief in democracy) cannot (Geertz, 1973; Wuthnow, 1988).

The Civil Rights Act of 1964, one of the crowning achievements of the civil rights movement, prohibited discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

Because, as a friend once said to me, social media is a kind of fun-house mirror of society, in that it warps some things and reveals others, which makes it confusing to navigate but also fertile ground for for the work of trying to better understand ourselves and the world around us. Because we are trying to do something new--because, in our digital search for meaning and realness, we are all amateurs--we have the opportunity to see things in a new way. So even though I sometimes feel tempted to look away from social media, I can't shake that feeling that jumping ship is not the best way to answer the questions I've been wrestling with for almost my entire life.

Let us turn now to a study of a small Newfoundland fishing village. Fishing is, in England at any rate – more hazardous even than mining. Cat Harbour, a community in Newfoundland, is very complex. Its social relationships occur in terms of a densely elaborate series of interrelated conceptual universes one important consequence of which is that virtually all permanent members of the community are kin, ‘cunny kin’, or economic associates of all other of the 285 permanent members. The primary activity of the community is cod fishing. Salmon, lobster, and squid provide additional sources of revenue. Woodcutting is necessary in off-seasons. Domestic gardening, and stints in lumber camps when money is needed, are the two other profitable activities. The community's religion is reactionary. Women assume the main roles in the operation though not the government of the churches in the town. A complicated system of ‘jinking’ – curses, magic, and witchcraft – governs and modulates social relationships. Successful cod fishing in the area depends upon highly developed skills of navigation, knowledge of fish movements, and familiarity with local nautical conditions. Lore is passed down by word of mouth, and literacy among older fishermen is not universal by any means. ‘Stranger’ males cannot easily assume dominant positions in the fishing systems and may only hire on for salary or percentage. Because women in the community are not paid for their labour, there has been a pattern of female migration out of the area. Significantly, two thirds of the wives in the community are from outside the area. This has a predictable effect on the community's concept of ‘the feminine’. An elaborate anti-female symbolism is woven into the fabric of male communal life, e.g. strong boats are male and older leaky ones are female. Women ‘are regarded as polluting “on the water” and the more traditional men would not consider going out if a woman had set foot in the boat that day – they are “jinker” (i.e., a jinx), even unwittingly'. (It is not only relatively unsophisticated workers such as those fishermen who insist on sexual purity. The very skilled technicians drilling for natural gas in the North Sea affirm the same taboo: women are not permitted on their drilling platform rigs.) It would be, however, a rare Cat Harbour woman who would consider such an act, for they are aware of their structural position in the outport society and the cognition surrounding their sex….Cat Harbour is a male-dominated society….Only men can normally inherit property, or smoke or drink, and the increasingly frequent breach of this by women is the source of much gossip (and not a negligible amount of conflict and resentment). Men are seated first at meals and eat together – women and children eating afterwards. Men are given the choicest and largest portions, and sit at the same table with a ‘stranger’ or guest. Women work extremely demanding and long hours, ‘especially during the fishing season, for not only do they have to fix up to 5 to 6 meals each day for the fishermen, but do all their household chores, mind the children and help “put away fish”. They seldom have time to visit extensively, usually only a few minutes to and from the shop or Post Office….Men on the other hand, spend each evening arguing, gossiping, and “telling cuffers”, in the shop, and have numerous “blows” (i.e., breaks) during the day.’ Pre-adolescents are separated on sexual lines. Boys play exclusively male games and identify strongly with fathers or older brothers. Girls perform light women's work, though Faris indicates '. . . often openly aspire to be male and do male things. By this time they can clearly see the privileged position of the Cat Harbour male….’. Girls are advised not to marry a fisherman, and are encouraged to leave the community if they wish to avoid a hard life. Boys are told it is better to leave Cat Harbour than become fishermen....

The meaning of the field is derived not from objective evidence of effectiveness but from the preferences of the culture - a sociological marvel rather than a clinical one.

Monotheism is a belief system that you see appearing in early herding societies. The greater their dependence on sheep herding, the more likely their belief in a shepherd god. It’s an exact correlation, you can chart it and see. And the god is always male, because those societies were patriarchal. There’s a kind of archaeology, an anthropology—a sociology of religion, that makes all of this perfectly clear—how it came about, what needs it fulfilled.

This is not about religion. This dilemma arises from the concept of shame. Sociology defines it as a family of emotions that arise from viewing the self negatively through the eyes of others. Therefore, it is this fear of judgement that pushes men to murder.

If personal identity resides in the telling, then so does social identity. Families, nations, religions (but also corporations, universities, departments of sociology) know who they are by the stories they tell. The modern discipline of history is closely related to the emergence of the nation-state.

Orthodox Judaism mandates that men have greater obligations in prayer and study, while women’s primary role is in the family. Therefore, women do not participate as much in those ongoing rituals that create a relationship to God.

Evangelicals simply cannot be identified immediately with the political right. Non- Anglican Protestants in Britain were long aligned with the political Left, and Australia’s left-wing parties have also enjoyed a measure of evangelical support. Canada’s major left-wing political organization, the New Democratic Party, came to prominence under the leadership of a Baptist pastor, Tommy Douglas.

Christ’s public life extended only over three years, and for this he had been silently training his mind for around thirty years. For years he had been breaking all the sociologically imposed ties of religious fundamentalism. For years he had been working in solitude to become liberated from the manacles of dogmatic bondage. And it is in the solitude that legends are born, and idiots are born in packs.

There is inevitably a chicken-and-the-egg character to any debate as to whether economic growth produces its appropriate mental character or is produced by it. Most sociologically-minded historians are naturally biased in favour of the view that changes in beliefs are preceded by changes in social and economic structure.

I have lived and worked in the Washington, D. C., metropolitan area for almost four decades. During this period I have watched families and institutions recycle their problems for several generations, despite enormous efforts to be innovative. The opportunity to observe this firsthand was provided by my involvement in the major institutions designed by our civilization to foster change: religion, education, psychotherapy, and politics (I have been here since Eisenhower). That experience included twenty years as a pulpit rabbi, an overlapping twenty-five years as an organizational consultant and family therapist with a broadly ecumenical practice, and several years of service as a community relations specialist for the Johnson White House helping metropolitan areas throughout the United States to voluntarily desegregate housing, before Congress passed appropriate civil rights legislation. Eventually, the accumulation of this experience began to show me how similar all of our “systems of salvation” are in their structure, the way they formulate problems, the range of their approaches, and their rationalizations for their failures. It was, indeed, the basic similarity in their thinking processes, despite their different sociological classifications, that first led me to consider the possibility that our constant failure to change families and institutions fundamentally has less to do with finding the right methods than with misleading emotional and conceptual factors that reside within society itself. For

Today the word "cult" is often used in both a sociological and a theological sense. Sociologically, a cult is a religious or semireligious sect or group whose members are often controlled or dominated almost entirely by a single individual or organization. A sociological definition generally includes (but is not limited to) the authoritarian, manipulative, and sometimes communal features of cults. Some cults, such as the Children of God and the Moonies, manifest many of these sociological characteristics.

in our materialist culture, such alternate forms of knowledge, whatever they might be, tend to undergo a materialist reduction. This is simply a sociological fact about how knowledge in our culture is viewed: the world, whatever else it may be, is composed of matter, and it is best understood in materialist terms. This, overwhelmingly, is the received opinion. Accordingly, many thinkers will claim that science (a science whose main task is to study and understand matter) constitutes our best form of knowledge. Of course, the very claim that science is our best form of knowledge is itself nonscientific. No scientific experiment or scientific theory can define what science is. In fact, what constitutes science is not written in stone but has been continually negotiated for more than two millennia (scientists, or natural philosophers as they used to be called, have been around at least that long).

Our understanding of the sociology of knowledge leads to the conclusion that the sociologies of language and religion cannot be considered peripheral specialties of little interest to sociological theory as such, but have essential contributions to make to it. This insight is not new. Durkheim and his school had it, but it was lost for a variety of theoretically irrelevant reasons. We hope we have made it clear that the sociology of knowledge presupposes a sociology of language, and that a sociology of knowledge without a sociology of religion is impossible (and vice versa). Furthermore, we believe that we have shown how the theoretical positions of Weber and Durkheim can be combined in a comprehensive theory of social action that does not lose the inner logic of either. Finally, we would contend that the linkage we have been led to make here between the sociology of knowledge and the theoretical core of the thought of Mead and his school suggests an interesting possibility for what might be called a sociological psychology, that is, a psychology that derives its fundamental perspectives from a sociological understanding of the human condition. The observations made here point to a program that seems to carry theoretical promise. More generally, we would contend that the analysis of the role of knowledge in the dialectic of individual and society, of personal identity and social structure, provides a crucial complementary perspective for all areas of sociology. This is certainly not to deny that purely structural analyses of social phenomena are fully adequate for wide areas of sociological inquiry, ranging from the study of small groups to that of large institutional complexes, such as the economy or politics. Nothing is further from our intentions than the suggestion that a sociology-of-knowledge “angle” ought somehow to be injected into all such analyses. In many cases this would be unnecessary for the cognitive goal at which these studies aim. We are suggesting, however, that the integration of the findings of such analyses into the body of sociological theory requires more than the casual obeisance that might be paid to the “human factor” behind the uncovered structural data. Such integration requires a systematic accounting of the dialectical relation between the structural realities and the human enterprise of constructing reality—in history. We

All the great religious doctrines of Asia are creations of intellectuals.

Activity becomes process. Choices become destiny. Men then live in the world they themselves have made as if they were fated to do so by powers that are quite independent of their own world-constructing enterprises.

most historical relationships are ironical in character, or, to put it differently, that the course of history has little to do with the intrinsic logic of ideas that served as causal factors in it

كان الرجل في الزمان القديم بطلآ يحمل السيف. وكانت المرأة ضعيفة محتاجة الى الرجل في أمر معاشها فهي مضظرة أن تخدمه وأن تغريه وأن تدلك أعطافه لكي تحضل على ماتريد. أما اليوم فقد بطل فعل السيف، وذهب زمن العظلات المفتولة و الانف الشامخ، أذا حل محله زمن الذكاء والدأب وبراعة اليد واللسان. وبهذا خرجت المرأة تنافس الرجل عمله، وشعرت بأنها قادرة على منافسته، فلا سيف هناك ولا مصارعة. وأذا أراد الرجل أستغلالها من جديد أستطاعت أن تكيل له الصاع صاعين.فهي تستطيع أن تعمل كما يعمل وأن تدرس كما يدرس وأن تتحذلق كمل يتحذلق، وهي فوق ذلك تملك من سلاح العيون والنهود ما يجعله راكعآ بين يديها ينشد قصائد الحب والغرام.

As I continued to read the writings of conservative intellectuals, from Edmund Burke in the eighteenth century through Friedrich Hayek and Thomas Sowell in the twentieth, I began to see that they had attained a crucial insight into the sociology of morality that I had never encountered before. They understood the importance of what I’ll call moral capital. (Please note that I am praising conservative intellectuals, not the Republican Party.)36

Policy makers beware: unless you are ready to admit that you are facing an essentially theological problem in the Middle East, do not go about prescribing solutions, for you may actually make matters worse—particularly by creating the false impression that economic, sociological, or political programs can fix what is, in fact, a delusion of faith

In describing the ways that religious and other types of communities appropriate and understand their histories, among both fundamentalists and non-fundamentalists, the sociologist Anthony Giddens utilizes the term “reflexivity” and states that it is the characteristic of “all human action.” Reflexivity takes place when individuals and/or communities utilize their perceptions of their histories as a way of guiding their present and future actions. For Giddens, tradition is a means of “handling time and space, which asserts any particular activity or experience with the community of past, present, and future, these in turn being structured by recurrent social practices.” In light of this, tradition is a set of entities which religious communities and cultures continually reconstruct within certain parameters. Religions are not completely static in that almost every new generation reinvents the religious and cultural inheritance from the generations that preceded it.

They look at religion too much from the point of view of philosophy, sociology, or even of esthetics.

Sure, the God question has come up on occasion. Not a problem for Debbie. She has had no difficulty answering her sons’ questions about God. “I always start by just saying that I think life is really wonderful, really beautiful, and that we are so lucky to be here, so lucky to be alive, so lucky that we can appreciate the beauty of the world. But I tell them that I don’t feel the need to put God in there somewhere in order to appreciate all those things. So we tell them that. And then we say that some people do believe in God, but we don’t.” And what about when the kids ask about what happens when we die? Again, Debbie handles this topic with relative ease. “I have just told them that it is a time of peace. You’re not alive anymore. You’re part of the world. You just go back to being part of the world, and your body becomes a part of everything. I always try to be positive, to put it in positive terms—that you will become part of the world and return to the earth.” What I admire most about the way Debbie handles such questions is her ability to be clear and honest about her lack of supernatural beliefs while at the same time not putting down religion, not condemning it or mocking it. It is important that her kids know where Debbie stands on these topics, while at the same time healthy and good that she doesn’t sour them on the bulk of humanity—those billions of people who do believe in God or life after death. Debbie’s answers exude confidence rather than defensiveness, ease rather than stress, and openness rather than closed-mindedness. This may simply be the result of her own personality. But it may also be a result of the sociological fact that her daily life is devoid of religious bullying, zealous proselytizing, or fervent faith,

About those sociologists have much more to learn. But one thing is certain sociologically: operating at the heart of both personal and religious stability and change are the crucial matter of significant personal relationships—both those that affirm and bind and those that break down and set loose. Rarely do people’s thinking and feeling and behaving change dramatically (or stay the same) without significant social relationships exerting pressures to do so and facilitating these outcomes. Significant personal relationships may not be the heart of religious life itself, but they certainly provide the bones and other muscles within which the heart of religion beats.

their own presence much more visible. From a sociological point of view, the core “products” of religion include doctrine, prayer and devotion, worship, supernatural experience, and personal morality. Aside from the sacraments, there’s no reason why lay Catholic ministers can’t deliver these spiritual goods just as well as Pentecostals, indigenous shamans, or anyone else. One reason they often don’t is because no one has encouraged them to do so, but another factor is that even when they try, many people won’t feel satisfied with the exchange unless there’s a priest involved. To put the point simply, many people won’t feel that the Catholic Church really cares about them until they see a priest.

No science of religion (history, psychology, or sociology of religion) understands the reality of religion. Science can know and understand religions without the investigator’s belonging to or having faith in any of them. Real faith is not knowable.

Victimhood culture makes it hard to avoid wrongdoing. If you have any kind of privilege, the social world is full of peril; you always risk giving offense. Engage in small talk and you might be guilty of a microaggression. Cook a new dish or adopt a new hairstyle and you might be guilty of cultural appropiation. Teach about something unpleasant and you might be guilty of triggering someone. Express your religions or political beliefs and you might be guilty of violence. Whatever you do, you must do it in a way that is supportive of victims and reproachful of their oppressors.

Religion legitimates so effectively because it relates the precarious reality constructions of empirical societies with the ultimate reality.

It’s a worry when you can’t tell whether the person yelling at you is a twelve-year-old whose parents need to take their Twitter account away, or a professor of sociology’.

They called me 'the angriest Negro in America.' I wouldn't deny that charge. I spoke exactly as I felt. 'I believe in anger. The Bible says there is a time for anger.

E. A. Thompson has advocated the view that the success of the Christian mission among the Goths was to be ascribed not so much to the excellent mission work of Ulfilas, but rather to the devastating effect the Goths’ encounter with the Roman Empire had on their traditional way of life. He also contends that, apart from the Suevi, no German tribe remained faithful to its traditional religion for longer than one generation after it had invaded the Roman Empire; thus a major reason for the Germans’ conversion to Christianity, sociologically speaking, was the disruption of social conditions caused by their migrations (references to Thompson in Frend 1974:40).

So, if someone like Richard Dawkins indignantly protests that his passion about these sorts of things -- the passion that drives the "God Delusion" -- should not be taken as a religious passion, I am happy to accept that. I do nevertheless think that often Dawkins and company show the sociological characteristics of the religious. This comes across particularly in what Freud calls the narcissism of small differences, the hatred of those who are close to them but not quite close enough. Just as evangelicals can differ bitterly over the true meaning of the host, so the New Atheists loathe people like me who (like them) have no religious belief but who think that science as such does not refute religion. [Is Darwinism a Religion? - Michael Ruse]

Life is . . . a stream flowing from high mountain ranges which wring it from the clouds, coursing down through all the manifold ways in which the water comes down at Lodore to the sea of eternity. Adolescence is the chief rapids in this river of life which may cut a deep canyon and leave its shores a desert.

What follows from all of this, then, is that, as well as thinking a bit more about the philosophy of religion, we should think a bit more about comparative religion; the psychology of religion; the sociology of religion; and theology. And, having thought about them for a while, we might very well conclude that the only reasonable course is to stop doing so and to start to pray.'°

We in our secular, rationalist world are utterly unprepared for such existential-spiritual spasms. For one thing, we do not study the history of religion in any serious way, even for explanations of religious phenomena. Instead, we look for sociological explanations, or economic explanations, or even political explanations, and we do so precisely because we find it almost impossible to posit spiritual appetites and spiritual passions as independent, primary forces in human history.

The difference between the sacred — be it an object or religious method — and the profane is self explanatory (Durkheim 1965:52-54), so let us move on to magic, which I define as production without labor.

Religion is the symbolic and/or ritualized cultural system of knowledge, which informs behavior, that offers one means of surviving this complex thing we call ‘Life.

Ritual is a habit and/or a compulsion that at least fulfills one of the following functions: (1) to give worship to a particular divine agent; (2) to invoke remembrance of either a past or future religious event; and/or (3) a pseudo-technology that is used to control or change the believer’s environment.

The racial conflict and self-segregation described [...] are not what we would expect if widespread assumptions about the advantages of diversity are true. The prevailing view in the media and some parts of academia is that race is not even a legitimate biological category, and that it is only because of prejudiced conditioning that we even notice it. This view ignores the large body of scientific work that suggests racial and ethnic consciousness is deeply rooted in human psychology. Our species seems to have an instinct for determining who is in our group and who is not. Studies of individuals point to unconscious processes in the brain that reflect a suspicion of people unlike ourselves, leading some researchers to conclude that ethnocentrism is part of human nature. At the same time, studies at the group level show that ethnic conflict is universal. In all countries, diversity of religion, ethnicity, or race causes conflict. For the better part of the post-war period, sociologists and political scientists downplayed ethnic conflict, on the assumption that it was a pre modern relic that would be replaced by competition based on class or professional affiliation. This has not happened. As one researcher has concluded, “ethnicity based on common descent tends to be more important than class based on common interest. Blood runs thicker than money.” It is from two directions, therefore, that scientists have begun to question the view that ethnic or racial mixing can be easily achieved. Laboratory investigations of individuals have found what may be tribal or ethnocentric instincts, while analysis of societies suggests that diversity invariably brings conflict.

Serving officers dare not criticize diversity for fear it will kill their careers. Only after he retired did Army Green Beret Major Andy Messing say that Special Forces units should be homogeneous because this promotes cohesion. He said differences of race or religion add to the tensions of a grinding training regimen and perilous combat missions. A recent book-length study of cohesion in Civil War units found that soldiers were less likely to desert if they were fighting alongside men who resembled them in ethnicity, religion, and occupation, and who came from the same part of the country. Authors Dora Costa and Matthew Kahn concluded that men were most likely to risk their lives for men who were most like themselves. They also found that Union veterans’ health was worse in old age if they had seen a lot of combat but were surprised to discover that this effect disappeared for soldiers who had fought in very homogeneous units. Fighting alongside close comrades immunized them against battle trauma.

Lately, in the curious and widely diffused teaching called the Science of Sociology, it has been asserted that the relations between the members of human society have been, and are, dependent on economic conditions. But to assert this is merely to substitute for the clear and evident cause of a phenomenon one of its effects. The cause of this or that economic condition always was (and could not but be) the oppression of some men by others. Economic conditions are a result of violence, and cannot therefore be the cause of human relations. Evil men – the Cains – who loved idleness and were covetous, always attacked good men – the Abels – the tillers of the soil, and by killing them or threatening to kill them, profited by their toil. The good, gentle, and industrious people, instead of fighting their oppressors, considered it best to submit, partly because they did not wish to fight, and partly because they could not do so without interrupting their work of feeding themselves and their neighbors. On this oppression of the good by the evil, and not on any economic conditions, all existing human societies have been, and still are, based and built.

The church and the scientific community are fighting at times a common enemy: the truth religion cannot deny and the positivist materialist scientist is unable to explain.

To embrace the belief that man is the accidental product of a random and otherwise genetically and biologically impossible Darwinian gradual evolution allegedly monitored by a quasi-fictitious natural selection, a process that supposedly started with an amoeba nobody knows how it arrived on Earth that somehow became a fish with stumps for legs that turned crocodile, a creature that following successive transmutations “evolved” into an ape that ended up as Leonardo Da Vinci is an attitude that comes in conflict with the scientific method of research and it certainly violates its standard principles.

Religion thrives on want and fear of the unknown, on lack of education. A frightened and confused human is fed by religious institutions with the illusion that the solution to his real problems is to appeal to the good will of an imaginary supernatural divinity religious institutions claim to represent. With one hand they offer a cup of rice and a pair of used shoes someone else has paid for. With the other, they place the Bible on the table, setting up the poor in spirit for the belief trap.

Life on Earth is not the result of a series of miracles performed by a supernatural god-creator, and it is definitely not a product of matter having a mind of its own, of an equally miraculous evolutionary process supervised by Lady Natural Selection who would turn rabbits into lions.

That everything in nature has “the appearance” of design is not exactly evidence against design. According to Dawkins, though, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is almost certainly something else.

… between the irrational promoted in churches and the Darwinian pseudo-science taught in schools, a revolution in the way we understand reality is not only necessary but also long overdue.

The visionary impulse giving rise to apocalyptic eschatology tends to be strongest among those embracing the prophetic promise of Yahweh's restoration of the faithful but at the same time witnessing the political and cultic structures of their nation falling into the hands of adversaries, thereby vitiating the possibility of fulfillment within the existing order of things. The pragmatic or realistic impulse tends to be strongest among those exercising control over political and religious structures; they often actively oppose the visionaries, viewing them as a threat to their position of leadership.

The coming kingdom of God was not, then, a matter of abstract ideas or timeless truths. It was not about a new sort of religion, a new spiritual experience, a new moral code (or new strength to observe existing ones). It was not a doctrine or a soteriology (a systematic scheme for individual salvation or a general statement about how one might go to heaven after death). It was not a new sociological analysis, critique, or agenda. It was about Israel’s story reaching its climax, about Israel’s history moving toward its decisive moment.

To state it more simply, the study of religion is chiefly the study of a certain kind of human behavior, be it under the rubric of anthropology, sociology, or psychology. The study of theology, on the other hand, is the study of God. Religion is anthropocentric; theology is theocentric. The difference between religion and theology is ultimately the difference between God and man—hardly a small difference.

From Fustel de Coulanges to his student, Durkheim, is but a short step. Durkheim's distinction between the sacred and the profane, and his linking of the sacred to the social are but a broadening and systematization of what Fustel had confined to the classical city-state.

There is something odd, suspiciously odd, about the rapidity with which queer theory–whose claim to radical politics derived from its anti-assimilationist posture, from its shocking embrace of the abnormal and the marginal–has been embraced by, canonized by, and absorbed into our (largely heterosexual) insti- tutions of knowledge, as lesbian and gay studies never were. Despite its im- plicit (and false) portrayal of lesbian and gay studies as liberal, assimilationist, and accommodating of the status quo, queer theory has proven to be much more congenial to established institutions of the liberal academy. The first step was for the “theory” in queer theory to prevail over the “queer,” for “queer” to become a harmless qualifier of “theory”: if it’s theory, progressive academics seem to have reasoned, then it’s merely an extension of what important people have already been doing all along. It can be folded back into the standard practice of literary and cultural studies, without impeding academic business as usual. The next step was to despecify the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or transgressive content of queerness, thereby abstracting “queer” and turning it into a generic badge of subversiveness, a more trendy version of “liberal”: if it’s queer, it’s politically oppositional, so everyone who claims to be progressive has a vested interest in owning a share of it. Finally, queer theory, being a theory instead of a discipline, posed no threat to the monopoly of the established disciplines: on the contrary, queer theory could be incorporated into each of them, and it could then be applied to topics in already established fields. Those working in En- glish, history, classics, anthropology, sociology, or religion would now have the option of using queer theory, as they had previously used Deconstruction, to advance the practice of their disciplines–by “queering” them. The outcome of those three moves was to make queer theory a game the whole family could play. This has resulted in a paradoxical situation: as queer theory becomes more widely diffused throughout the disciplines, it becomes harder to figure out what’s so very queer about it, while lesbian and gay studies, which by con- trast would seem to pertain only to lesbians and gay men, looks increasingly backward, identitarian, and outdated.

THE FOLLOWING ARGUMENT is intended to be an exercise in sociological theory. Specifically, it seeks to apply a general theoretical perspective derived from the sociology of knowledge to the phenomenon of religion. While at certain points the argument moves on levels of considerable abstraction, it never leaves (at least not intentionally) the frame of reference of the empirical discipline of sociology.

The Social Contract is, primarily, an inquiry into the legitimacy of power. But it is a book about rights, not about facts, and at no time is it a collection of sociological observations. It is concerned with principles and for this very reason is bound to be controversial. It presumes that traditional legitimacy, which is supposedly of divine origin, is not acquired. Thus it proclaims another sort of legitimacy and other principles. The Social Contract is also a catechism, of which it has both the tone and the dogmatic language. Just as 1789 completes the conquests of the English and American revolutions, so Rousseau pushes to its limits the theory of the social contract to be found in Hobbes. The Social Contract amplifies and dogmatically explains the new religion whose god is reason, confused with nature, and whose representative on earth, in place of the king, is the people considered as an expression of the general will.

The world’s great religions provide a moral foundation for anymal liberation. Those who stand within one of the world’s largest religious traditions, if they are sincere in their religious commitment, must not buy flesh, nursing milk products, or hen’s reproductive eggs in any form, or support any industry that profits at the expense of anymals, including zoos, circuses, aquariums, horse and dog racing, rodeos, and movies. Furthermore, those who stand within one of the world’s largest religious traditions must assist and defend anymals who are exploited in any of these industries, as well as anymals who are exploited to gather or disseminate information, whether for medicine, biology, pharmaceuticals, veterinary science, pathology, psychology, sociology, anymal behavior, or weaponry, to name just a few. These requirements are not particularly stringent when we realize that these products and activities not only harm anymals, but also have been proven to harm human health and prevent us from gathering more pertinent information from willing and needy human subjects.

Those who stand within one of the world’s largest religious traditions, if they are sincere in their religious commitment, must not buy flesh, nursing milk products, or hen’s reproductive eggs in any form, or support any industry that profits at the expense of anymals, including zoos, circuses, aquariums, horse and dog racing, rodeos, and movies. Furthermore, those who stand within one of the world’s largest religious traditions must assist and defend anymals who are exploited in any of these industries, as well as anymals who are exploited to gather or disseminate information, whether for medicine, biology, pharmaceuticals, veterinary science, pathology, psychology, sociology, anymal behavior, or weaponry, to name just a few. These requirements are not particularly stringent when we realize that these products and activities not only harm anymals, but also have been proven to harm human health and prevent us from gathering more pertinent information.

Art is not simply an external ornament donned by the cult to conceal its excessively harsh and austere side; rather the cult has an aesthetic aspect in itself.

34.      In the USA, if you believe in a god you are twice as probable to end up in prison compared to non-believers. According to the 2014 General Sociological Survey, 21% of the Americans do not identify with a religion. At the same time, just 10.5% of US prison inmates are atheists.

Science is unable to set its own priorities. It is also incapable of determining what to do with its discoveries. For example, from a purely scientific viewpoint it is unclear what we should do with our increasing understanding of genetics. Should we use this knowledge to cure cancer, to create a race of genetically engineered supermen, or to engineer dairy cows with super-sized udders? It is obvious that a liberal government, a Communist government, a Nazi government, and a capitalist business corporation would use the very same scientific discovery for completely different purposes, and there is no scientific reason to prefer one usage over others. In short, scientific research can flourish only in alliance with some religion or ideology. The ideology justifies the costs of the research. In exchange, the ideology influences the scientific agenda and determines what to do with the discoveries. Hence in order to comprehend how humankind has reached Alamogordo and the Moon—rather than any number of alternative destinations—it is not enough to survey the achievements of physicists, biologists, and sociologists. We have to take into account the ideological, political and economic forces that shaped physics, biology, and sociology, pushing them in certain directions while neglecting others.

Will the dwindling of religion and community jeopardize social order? Will we be able to live meaningful lives in the absence of sacredness? In particular, Max Weber was troubled by Dostoevsky's and Tolstoy's questions: If we are no longer afraid of God, what will make us moral? If we are not engaged in and compelled by sacred, collective, and binding meanings, what will make our lives meaningful? If the individual rather than God is at the center of morality, what will become of the ethic of brotherliness that had been the driving force of religions?

I knew right there in prison that reading had forever changed the course of my life.

They used as a reason for my transfer [from one prison to another] that I refused to take some kind of shots, an innoculation or something.

I simply refused to believe.

I got on top of a car and began waving my arms and yelling at them to quiet down. They did quiet down, and then I asked them to disperse - and they did.

The white man's system has been imposed upon non-white peoples all over the world.

I don't think anybody ever got more out of going to prison than I did.

That morning was when I first began to reappraise the "white man." It was when I first began to perceive that "white man," as commonly used, means complexion only secondarily; primarily it described attitudes and actions. In America, "white man" meant specific attitudes and actions toward the black man, and toward all other non-white men. But in the Muslim world, I had seen that men with white complexions were more genuinely brotherly than anyone else had ever been.

I regard this radical experience of rave as a manifestation of the religious ‘fête’,13 or ‘celebration’. The ‘festive’, a religious category different from that of ritual, is, for Georges Bataille specifically, a human fusion in which this accursed share is given expression. Fuelled by desire, an instinct, a call for destruction, exhilaration, dis-order, a motivation often understood as animalistic, the fête, in which the paradoxes of human and social life collide, is simultaneously harnessed and subordinated by a wisdom which enables the participants to come back from this confusional state with a feeling of replenishment, as if having received some kind of impetus from the ‘outside’ (Bataille 1989: 54).

I could tell the impact of this upon them. They had been aware that the plight of the black man in America was "bad," but they had not been aware that it was inhuman, that it was psychological castration.

إن سحب آليات نظرية التطور على الأمور الاجتماعية واستخدامها كنظرية سحرية تفسر كل شيء بدءا من وجود الدين في جميع الحضارات وانتهاء بوجود مؤسسة الزواج والأسرة لتنظيم عملية التناسل ورعاية الأبناء من غير أدلة قوية على ذلك هو خيار ساذج وسطحي وطريقة غير علمية في التفكير!

Sometimes in a panel or debate appearance, I’d find a jam-packed audience to hear me, alone, facing six or eight student and faculty scholars heads of departments such as sociology, psychology, philosophy, history, and religion, and each of them coming at me in his specialty. At the outset, always I’d confront such panels with something such as: 'Gentlemen, I finished the eighth grade in Mason, Michigan. My high school was the black ghetto of Roxbury, Massachusetts. My college was in the streets of Harlem, and my master’s was taken in prison. Mr. Muhammad has taught me that I never need fear any man’s intellect who tries to defend or to justify the white man’s criminal record against the non-white man—especially the white man and the black man here in North America.' It was like being on a battlefield—with intellectual and philosophical bullets. It was an exciting battling with ideas.

The profound meanings of the colors is something that was an integral part of all the ancient civilizations of Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece, China and Tibet, as well as the traditional cultures of the Native American Indians, and even the medieval Europeans. For all those thousands of years, symbolic colors functioned as basic building blocks in the world view of most of the religions on Earth. For all those thousands of years. the colors of the cardinal directions (North, East, South, West), and the colors of the primary elements (Fire, Air, Earth, Water) were filled with cosmic significance. When these people chose a color to wear around their finger or their neck, they were not trying to look attractive; they were trying to enter into closer communication with the divine spirits of the universe. During the 16th and 17th centuries, an enormous change took place in European civilization. The consciousness of modern times began to be born. Art, science, philosophy, religion had been intimately interrelated aspects of each other. Now they began to go their separate ways. All walks of life shifted away from an unquestioning belief in the transcendent promise offered to the entire community of the faith-promise offered to the entire community of the faithful in 'Heaven Above', and began to concentrate on the more certain, the more immediate reality that each person could experience right here on earth. This new sociology may be characterized as 'Institutionalized Industrialism.' It is a cultural system that integrates the psychologically consonant principles of religious protestantism, economic capitalism, political democracy, and aesthetic single-point perspective. his new psycho-social system - this new consciousness - is the one that continues to describe most of the Western world.

Although Huizinga does not systematically describe the transformation to the modern world, some of those changes can be pieced together in roughly the following way. Earlier societies were smaller and more local and anchored by patterns of oral communication. They were, to use modern sociological parlance, less “differentiated.” That is, the different institutional spheres (economy, politics, education, religion, family, etc.) had not yet been separated—each with its distinctive organizations, personnel, and codes of conduct—as they are now. As a consequence, the relevant social bodies of the times (families, clans, tribes, village communities, etc.) were expected to handle most of the personal and social requirements of their members.

Sometimes in a panel or debate appearance, I’d find a jam-packed audience to hear me, alone, facing six or eight student and faculty scholars-heads of departments such as sociology, psychology, philosophy, history, and religion, and each of them coming at me in his specialty. At the outset, always I’d confront such panels with something such as: 'Gentlemen, I finished the eighth grade in Mason, Michigan. My high school was the black ghetto of Roxbury, Massachusetts. My college was in the streets of Harlem, and my master’s was taken in prison. Mr. Muhammad has taught me that I never need fear any man’s intellect who tries to defend or to justify the white man’s criminal record against the non-white man—especially the white man and the black man here in North America.' It was like being on a battlefield—with intellectual and philosophical bullets. It was an exciting battling with ideas.