Monday, February 28, 2005
In this other excerpt from another interview with Esther Kaplan, you can easily understand the wacky level of thinking of many American Christian fundamentalists when it comes to abstinence-only education (the stress is mine):
So that's the morale of the story for American Christan fundamentalists: who cares if teenage girls get pregnant or get STDs: it's their fault! They had sex, so they have to pay for it!
They - the pious Christians - have set the standards, the standards of indoctrinating teenagers with scare-messages and keeping them in complete ignorance on the means to protect themselves if they decide to have sex. And if the standards give poor results because objectively most teenagers do have sex before marriage (even those who pledge abstinence), who cares?
Esther Kaplan: Well, there were a couple things, experiences I had, that really affected my thinking. One, which I do recount in the book, which was very striking to me, was an encounter I had with one of the abstinence educators in Tennessee who confessed to me at one point that several of her friends who'd been teaching their children abstinence for their whole growing up now had pregnant teenage daughters. You know, I really thought she was confessing to me that there were some faults in the abstinence approach when she told me this. But then she said that they really didn't regret it at all. That they felt actually very good that they'd given a clear moral message throughout, even though they hadn't been effective with their own daughters.
I just turned that over and over in my mind, for weeks afterwards. That's when it really hit me that their approach to all these public health issues, whether drug addiction, HIV infection, teen pregnancy, is not actually about results. That's not what they're actually trying to do. That's what public health people are trying to achieve, but that's not what they are trying to achieve.
What they're really trying to achieve is setting a clear moral standard, and they really care that it is clear and strong and that it is clearly communicated. And that people hear that and if they cross the line they will pay the consequences, but at least they really know what that standard is.
So that's the morale of the story for American Christan fundamentalists: who cares if teenage girls get pregnant or get STDs: it's their fault! They had sex, so they have to pay for it!
They - the pious Christians - have set the standards, the standards of indoctrinating teenagers with scare-messages and keeping them in complete ignorance on the means to protect themselves if they decide to have sex. And if the standards give poor results because objectively most teenagers do have sex before marriage (even those who pledge abstinence), who cares?
Sunday, February 27, 2005
Interesting interview (here), though not recent, with Esther Kaplan, author of With God on Their Side: How Christian Fundamentalists Trampled Science, Policy, and Democracy in George W. Bush's White House.
Excerpt of the interview:
BuzzFlash: Has Bush replaced science with faith? After all, we now have the National Parks distributing "creationism" explanations for the formation of America's natural wonders.
Esther Kaplan: You're referring to the fact that Grand Canyon National Park, over the opposition of the federal government's top geologists, is now selling a book that claims the canyon was created in the same biblical flood that launched Noah's ark. Keep in mind that National Park bookstores are mandated by law to promote sound science. But that's only the most famous example of faith eclipsing science in the Bush administration.
Bush has stacked several scientific advisory committees with religious fundamentalists who simply do not accept scientific consensus. The advisors to the National Center for Environmental Health now include Harold Koenig, who has written about the power of prayer in healing, and Sharon Falkenheimer, a member of the Christian Medical Association -- whose members must believe in "the divine inspiration, integrity, and final authority of the Bible as the Word of God." The Advisory Committee on Human Research Protections, which covers safety in human research trials, features another Christian Medical Association member, Nancy Jones, who has called scientific data "subjective" and comparable to "other dogmatic methods" such as theology.
Excerpt of the interview:
BuzzFlash: Has Bush replaced science with faith? After all, we now have the National Parks distributing "creationism" explanations for the formation of America's natural wonders.
Esther Kaplan: You're referring to the fact that Grand Canyon National Park, over the opposition of the federal government's top geologists, is now selling a book that claims the canyon was created in the same biblical flood that launched Noah's ark. Keep in mind that National Park bookstores are mandated by law to promote sound science. But that's only the most famous example of faith eclipsing science in the Bush administration.
Bush has stacked several scientific advisory committees with religious fundamentalists who simply do not accept scientific consensus. The advisors to the National Center for Environmental Health now include Harold Koenig, who has written about the power of prayer in healing, and Sharon Falkenheimer, a member of the Christian Medical Association -- whose members must believe in "the divine inspiration, integrity, and final authority of the Bible as the Word of God." The Advisory Committee on Human Research Protections, which covers safety in human research trials, features another Christian Medical Association member, Nancy Jones, who has called scientific data "subjective" and comparable to "other dogmatic methods" such as theology.
From The Prophet, by Kahlil Gibran:
And a woman who held a babe against her bosom said, "Speak to us of Children."
And he said:
Your children are not your children.
They are the sons and daughters of Life's longing for itself.
They come through you but not from you,
And though they are with you, yet they belong not to you.
You may give them your love but not your thoughts.
For they have their own thoughts.
You may house their bodies but not their souls,
For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow, which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams.
You may strive to be like them, but seek not to make them like you.
For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday.
You are the bows from which your children as living arrows are sent forth.
The archer sees the mark upon the path of the infinite, and He bends you with His might that His arrows may go swift and far.
Let your bending in the archer's hand be for gladness;
For even as he loves the arrow that flies, so He loves also the bow that is stable.
And a woman who held a babe against her bosom said, "Speak to us of Children."
And he said:
Your children are not your children.
They are the sons and daughters of Life's longing for itself.
They come through you but not from you,
And though they are with you, yet they belong not to you.
You may give them your love but not your thoughts.
For they have their own thoughts.
You may house their bodies but not their souls,
For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow, which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams.
You may strive to be like them, but seek not to make them like you.
For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday.
You are the bows from which your children as living arrows are sent forth.
The archer sees the mark upon the path of the infinite, and He bends you with His might that His arrows may go swift and far.
Let your bending in the archer's hand be for gladness;
For even as he loves the arrow that flies, so He loves also the bow that is stable.
Saturday, February 26, 2005
In some countries, like Iran, a blogger might be sentenced to 14 years of prison for expressing in his site displeasure for the arrest of other bloggers. "guilty" of simply expressing their opinions.
Please go to the above site (click on banners) and link to their banners/address in your blog. The site also gives information and suggestions on how to contribute to the freeing of people unjustly imprisoned for the mere fact of expressing their opinions.
Friday, February 18, 2005
A particular species of human beings manage to pass off disease and dissociation as health, and vitiated thinking as virtue. They manage to teach suspicion against this world in order to deserve admittance to a contrived one. It is no coincidence that they walk about like mournful vultures, dressed in black gowns, often wearing a gloomy grimace of anticipated decay and transience of all (which they call piety), surrounded by symbols of death and suffering.
Sunday, February 13, 2005
Interesting book:
The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic
by Chalmers Johnson
From Amazon.com:
Since September 2001, the United States has "undergone a transformation from republic to empire that may well prove irreversible," writes Chalmers Johnson. Unlike past global powers, however, America has built an empire of bases rather than colonies, creating in the process a government that is obsessed with maintaining absolute military dominance over the world, Johnson claims. The Department of Defense currently lists 725 official U.S. military bases outside of the country and 969 within the 50 states (not to mention numerous secret bases). According to the author, these bases are proof that the "United States prefers to deal with other nations through the use or threat of force rather than negotiations, commerce, or cultural interaction." This rise of American militarism, along with the corresponding layers of bureaucracy and secrecy that are created to circumvent scrutiny, signals a shift in power from the populace to the Pentagon: "A revolution would be required to bring the Pentagon back under democratic control," he writes.
The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic
by Chalmers Johnson
From Amazon.com:
Since September 2001, the United States has "undergone a transformation from republic to empire that may well prove irreversible," writes Chalmers Johnson. Unlike past global powers, however, America has built an empire of bases rather than colonies, creating in the process a government that is obsessed with maintaining absolute military dominance over the world, Johnson claims. The Department of Defense currently lists 725 official U.S. military bases outside of the country and 969 within the 50 states (not to mention numerous secret bases). According to the author, these bases are proof that the "United States prefers to deal with other nations through the use or threat of force rather than negotiations, commerce, or cultural interaction." This rise of American militarism, along with the corresponding layers of bureaucracy and secrecy that are created to circumvent scrutiny, signals a shift in power from the populace to the Pentagon: "A revolution would be required to bring the Pentagon back under democratic control," he writes.
In Sorrows of Empire, Johnson discusses the roots of American militarism, the rise and extent of the military-industrial complex, and the close ties between arms industry executives and high-level politicians. He also looks closely at how the military has extended the boundaries of what constitutes national security in order to centralize intelligence agencies under their control and how statesmen have been replaced by career soldiers on the front lines of foreign policy--a shift that naturally increases the frequency with which we go to war.
Though his conclusions
are sure to be controversial, Johnson is a skilled and experienced
historian who backs up his claims with copious research and persuasive
arguments. His important book adds much to a debate about the realities
and direction of U.S. influence in the world. --Shawn Carkonen
Sunday, February 06, 2005
"There comes a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part, you can't even passively take part. And you've got to put your bodies on the gears, and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus. And you've got to make it stop."
Mario Savio, December 2, 1964
"The university is a vast public utility which turns out future workers in today's vineyard, the military-industrial complex. They've got to be processed in the most efficient way to see to it that they have the fewest dissenting opinions, that they have just those characteristics which are wholly incompatible with being an intellectual. This is a real internal psychological contradiction. People have to suppress the very questions which reading books raises."
Mario Savio, talking to LIFE magazine, Feb. 26, 1965
Read also here (contains a recording of Mario Savio's speeches)
Mario Savio, December 2, 1964
"The university is a vast public utility which turns out future workers in today's vineyard, the military-industrial complex. They've got to be processed in the most efficient way to see to it that they have the fewest dissenting opinions, that they have just those characteristics which are wholly incompatible with being an intellectual. This is a real internal psychological contradiction. People have to suppress the very questions which reading books raises."
Mario Savio, talking to LIFE magazine, Feb. 26, 1965
Read also here (contains a recording of Mario Savio's speeches)
Saturday, February 05, 2005
Some thoughts on conflicts between teenagers and parents
In a family with teenagers often parents ...refuse to grow up
For many years, for as long as childhood lasts, parents guide and tell their kids what to do and what not to do. This may become, on both sides, a kind of habit.
There comes a point though, when the kid is not a kid anymore. The young adult discovers in himself (I use him or himself, for brevity, but mean to cover all possible genders!) the need and the enjoyment of expressing himself, of shaping his own life, and is prepared to bear the relevant responsibilities or the consequences of possible errors which, however, are part of life, and part of the process by which awareness develops.
Sometimes this process might not be easy. In fact, likely, it is never exempt from tensions. Some parents might find it hard to change their 'didactic' habits, to turn their breeding attitude into an evolved type of relation. It might be hard for them because it implies a change, a re-definition of themselves.
On the other hand, understandably, the teenager might resent an approach that seems to demand the perpetuation of old ways of relating to each other. Ways that are no longer applicable because ....things change.
A metaphor of life: a work of art
Life, I believe, can be compared to a work of art. Only one hand should hold the brush, and decide the strokes and the colours, otherwise the result is simply a mess. And just like an artist develops, even through errors, and thus refines his technique, likewise in life errors are those that allow refining our attitudes. The artist (and the individual) must have his own 'center', he cannot surely be guided by someone else.
Parents should learn that there comes a moment in which they should even not comment on the canvas, unless asked, let alone trying to paint it themselves. This means they should refrain from obsessive control regarding each and every aspect of their sons or daughters (fashion, music, religion, politics, love relationships). They should support their kids in finding their own life painting style. To express their being. To act, instead of having to react to unfair and unnecessary intrusion.
The concept is not hard but sometimes people may be psychologically imprisoned in old ways, incapable of maturing. Unfortuantely, this regards parents a lot more than is generally thought, in my opinion. Because while the young adult wants to express himself and develop, parents don't always do the same with their own life, and exploit the old role to postpone an evolution. The young moves on, the parents stay still or even regress.
The negative consequences of authoritarian or obsessive upbringing
If the parents' approach is somewhat querulous and obsessive and lacks tact and respect, and empathy, this surely can be a reason of conflicts and may even be counter-productive as regards the supposed ultimate aim of the parental job: forming an independent individual free to live without unnecessary anxiety. In some extreme cases, some young people might be so intensely subject to nagging parents that for many years, even in their adult life, they will obsessively seek their approval, or the approval of others, without being able to see things with their own mind, or make a truly independent decision. It might sound absurd, but it happens. And that this should be the result of parents, whose action should that of forming independent people, rather than the opposite, cannot but be perceived as a pathetic result of parenthood.
Some young people may even commit bigger errors because their judgement is blurred by an irrationally obsessive attitude of the parents. A parental attitude that can produce irrational reactions, or not totally coherent behaviour, self-harm and addictions, as a defense strategy against unfair interference, and as an attempt to create a distance and safeguard one's own "center" (self).
Incidentally: I don't mean to stress parents' responsibilities more than needed, but only to focus here on some parental attitudes that, in my opinion, receive little attention compared to the supposed hormones-ridden 'rebellion' of teenagers. Often, articles read on magazines are too 'parent-centric', they seem to start from the unstated premise that parents are mature and balanced and simply have to put up with the 'problems of adolescence'. This is not a fair picture. Parents are not necessarily psychologically more sound than their own kids by the mere virtue of their adulthood. Very often, even, it would be more accurate to say that, from the point of view of sanity, kids have to put up with unbalanced parents!
Some suggestions for young people
The best, for young people, is to try to avoid stress or anguish induced by excessive parental interference in private issues: religion, politics or love relationships. Not unfrequently parents show lack of respect and tact, if not utter irrationality and intrusiveness. Try to stay cool, don't let them drive you over the edge, and explain, when possible, your reasons in a calm, rational way. Require the same from them. Surely a proper way of communicating, rational and civil, is supposed to be fundamental in upbringing, thus, in this respect parents should be the first to give the example.
Also, activities outside one's home and in groups sharing common interests are very often a priceless release valve and a way to contrast a sense of isolation one may feel at home. It can be any activity done outside: courses in music, art, languages, sport. The more you express yourself and pursue what gives you pleasure and makes you truly feel good (I am not referring to 'reactive' behaviours, but to things that are deeply and truly enjoyed and felt right, and give you a sense of growing in the perception of things), the more your self will become stronger, and your vision clearer about yourself and the future. Also, as you know, parents may sometimes be careless or not understanding, or have problems. But friends can be there, and that's important. To paraphrase Mark Twain in some cases one "should not let parents get in the way of one's upbringing and growth"..
Sometimes counselling might help, but of the whole family
In case of extreme conflicts, it would not be a bad idea to talk to counselors. Or even require family counselling, because it is never just the teenager or the parent, it is the family-system that might need tuning, and sometimes a third-party can help in finding a better balance.
Other suggestions for young people. Always be aware of the human limitations and fallibility of parents: they make errors, sometimes big. And one of the biggest error of parents is often the refusal .....to grow. To grow out of old mental (breeding) habits. Or to solve their own problems, which in turn build up a pressure not unfrequently vented on the young. The excuse of parental concern is often, as I said, an unconscious 'strategy' to avoid change and elude questioning their own life or tackle their own problems.
Secondly, consider that it is very easy to fall into a situation of excessive antagonism, which does not help: it simply creates depression, anxiety and irrationality. An altered emotional balance can be a factor of errors! Often some destructive (or self-destructive) behaviours in teenagers originate from the desire to have control and, so to say, a 'center' as opposed to the 'attacks' and the intrusiveness of parents. Cases of bulimia, anorexia, self-harm are typical examples in which an unhealthy family environment produces unhealthy reactions. It is sad that a young human being should, in some cases, be almost forced to develop these reactions to cope with a unbalanced environment.
In such cases, the "problem" is never just a teenage problem, it is the problem of the whole family-system. When tranquillizers or therapies are administered to teenagers, that is often just a way to cover the causes - at a family level - that should be tackled in the first placeand not ignored. If the parents are not lucid and balanced enough, the young should - hopefully - be lucid and balanced for himself and demand counselling, but not to solve his own reactions only, rather to solve the causes in the first place. I believe in many cases,parents have a need to talk to psychologists to solve their problems, more so than their own kids who end up paying for their parents' unbalances (or insanity).
It is sad that parents, more often than not, despite the responsibility and maturity one would expect from them often wallow in strategies of psychological 'cover-up' and incapacity to seek and maintain a climate of serenity, balance, understanding and mutual respect within their own family.
Bottom line: in a family with teenagers, parents should grow, question themselves and learn at least as much as their own kids.
In a family with teenagers often parents ...refuse to grow up
For many years, for as long as childhood lasts, parents guide and tell their kids what to do and what not to do. This may become, on both sides, a kind of habit.
There comes a point though, when the kid is not a kid anymore. The young adult discovers in himself (I use him or himself, for brevity, but mean to cover all possible genders!) the need and the enjoyment of expressing himself, of shaping his own life, and is prepared to bear the relevant responsibilities or the consequences of possible errors which, however, are part of life, and part of the process by which awareness develops.
Sometimes this process might not be easy. In fact, likely, it is never exempt from tensions. Some parents might find it hard to change their 'didactic' habits, to turn their breeding attitude into an evolved type of relation. It might be hard for them because it implies a change, a re-definition of themselves.
On the other hand, understandably, the teenager might resent an approach that seems to demand the perpetuation of old ways of relating to each other. Ways that are no longer applicable because ....things change.
A metaphor of life: a work of art
Life, I believe, can be compared to a work of art. Only one hand should hold the brush, and decide the strokes and the colours, otherwise the result is simply a mess. And just like an artist develops, even through errors, and thus refines his technique, likewise in life errors are those that allow refining our attitudes. The artist (and the individual) must have his own 'center', he cannot surely be guided by someone else.
Parents should learn that there comes a moment in which they should even not comment on the canvas, unless asked, let alone trying to paint it themselves. This means they should refrain from obsessive control regarding each and every aspect of their sons or daughters (fashion, music, religion, politics, love relationships). They should support their kids in finding their own life painting style. To express their being. To act, instead of having to react to unfair and unnecessary intrusion.
The concept is not hard but sometimes people may be psychologically imprisoned in old ways, incapable of maturing. Unfortuantely, this regards parents a lot more than is generally thought, in my opinion. Because while the young adult wants to express himself and develop, parents don't always do the same with their own life, and exploit the old role to postpone an evolution. The young moves on, the parents stay still or even regress.
The negative consequences of authoritarian or obsessive upbringing
If the parents' approach is somewhat querulous and obsessive and lacks tact and respect, and empathy, this surely can be a reason of conflicts and may even be counter-productive as regards the supposed ultimate aim of the parental job: forming an independent individual free to live without unnecessary anxiety. In some extreme cases, some young people might be so intensely subject to nagging parents that for many years, even in their adult life, they will obsessively seek their approval, or the approval of others, without being able to see things with their own mind, or make a truly independent decision. It might sound absurd, but it happens. And that this should be the result of parents, whose action should that of forming independent people, rather than the opposite, cannot but be perceived as a pathetic result of parenthood.
Some young people may even commit bigger errors because their judgement is blurred by an irrationally obsessive attitude of the parents. A parental attitude that can produce irrational reactions, or not totally coherent behaviour, self-harm and addictions, as a defense strategy against unfair interference, and as an attempt to create a distance and safeguard one's own "center" (self).
Incidentally: I don't mean to stress parents' responsibilities more than needed, but only to focus here on some parental attitudes that, in my opinion, receive little attention compared to the supposed hormones-ridden 'rebellion' of teenagers. Often, articles read on magazines are too 'parent-centric', they seem to start from the unstated premise that parents are mature and balanced and simply have to put up with the 'problems of adolescence'. This is not a fair picture. Parents are not necessarily psychologically more sound than their own kids by the mere virtue of their adulthood. Very often, even, it would be more accurate to say that, from the point of view of sanity, kids have to put up with unbalanced parents!
Some suggestions for young people
The best, for young people, is to try to avoid stress or anguish induced by excessive parental interference in private issues: religion, politics or love relationships. Not unfrequently parents show lack of respect and tact, if not utter irrationality and intrusiveness. Try to stay cool, don't let them drive you over the edge, and explain, when possible, your reasons in a calm, rational way. Require the same from them. Surely a proper way of communicating, rational and civil, is supposed to be fundamental in upbringing, thus, in this respect parents should be the first to give the example.
Also, activities outside one's home and in groups sharing common interests are very often a priceless release valve and a way to contrast a sense of isolation one may feel at home. It can be any activity done outside: courses in music, art, languages, sport. The more you express yourself and pursue what gives you pleasure and makes you truly feel good (I am not referring to 'reactive' behaviours, but to things that are deeply and truly enjoyed and felt right, and give you a sense of growing in the perception of things), the more your self will become stronger, and your vision clearer about yourself and the future. Also, as you know, parents may sometimes be careless or not understanding, or have problems. But friends can be there, and that's important. To paraphrase Mark Twain in some cases one "should not let parents get in the way of one's upbringing and growth"..
Sometimes counselling might help, but of the whole family
In case of extreme conflicts, it would not be a bad idea to talk to counselors. Or even require family counselling, because it is never just the teenager or the parent, it is the family-system that might need tuning, and sometimes a third-party can help in finding a better balance.
Other suggestions for young people. Always be aware of the human limitations and fallibility of parents: they make errors, sometimes big. And one of the biggest error of parents is often the refusal .....to grow. To grow out of old mental (breeding) habits. Or to solve their own problems, which in turn build up a pressure not unfrequently vented on the young. The excuse of parental concern is often, as I said, an unconscious 'strategy' to avoid change and elude questioning their own life or tackle their own problems.
Secondly, consider that it is very easy to fall into a situation of excessive antagonism, which does not help: it simply creates depression, anxiety and irrationality. An altered emotional balance can be a factor of errors! Often some destructive (or self-destructive) behaviours in teenagers originate from the desire to have control and, so to say, a 'center' as opposed to the 'attacks' and the intrusiveness of parents. Cases of bulimia, anorexia, self-harm are typical examples in which an unhealthy family environment produces unhealthy reactions. It is sad that a young human being should, in some cases, be almost forced to develop these reactions to cope with a unbalanced environment.
In such cases, the "problem" is never just a teenage problem, it is the problem of the whole family-system. When tranquillizers or therapies are administered to teenagers, that is often just a way to cover the causes - at a family level - that should be tackled in the first placeand not ignored. If the parents are not lucid and balanced enough, the young should - hopefully - be lucid and balanced for himself and demand counselling, but not to solve his own reactions only, rather to solve the causes in the first place. I believe in many cases,parents have a need to talk to psychologists to solve their problems, more so than their own kids who end up paying for their parents' unbalances (or insanity).
It is sad that parents, more often than not, despite the responsibility and maturity one would expect from them often wallow in strategies of psychological 'cover-up' and incapacity to seek and maintain a climate of serenity, balance, understanding and mutual respect within their own family.
Bottom line: in a family with teenagers, parents should grow, question themselves and learn at least as much as their own kids.
Thursday, February 03, 2005
Voodoo water rituals
These are photographs by Abbas & Henrik Saxgren (found here).
They show some voodoo water rituals. As the page linked says, in many religions water is associated to rituals of purification. But certainly these voodoo rituals appear more fun, more integrated with tangible life than, say, those celebrated during a Christian mass in a dark solemn church filled with guilt-ridden images, where semi-naked bodies are only shown when scourged or crucified.
They show some voodoo water rituals. As the page linked says, in many religions water is associated to rituals of purification. But certainly these voodoo rituals appear more fun, more integrated with tangible life than, say, those celebrated during a Christian mass in a dark solemn church filled with guilt-ridden images, where semi-naked bodies are only shown when scourged or crucified.
(c) Abbas
(c) Henrik Saxgren
(c) Henrik Saxgren
There is no doubt that some religions are more fun than others.
So if one really has to indulge in what Freud defined a socially-accepted form of neurosis, why not picking the more fun one?
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
When Christianity will universally be considered a mythology, it will
not be as entertaining and theatrically effective as, say, Roman,
Greek, Norse or Indian mythologies. It is not heroic nor
life-enhancing, and what need is there to have a mythology of sadness,
contrition, retreat, humility, diffidence towards the body and the
material world, self-hate and self-scourging? The only way to
'creatively exploit' Christian mythology will, perhaps, be that of
making horror or sado-masochistic movies. [28.01.05]
We have seen this already: the religion of today is the mythology or the fairy-tale of tomorrow. [28.01.05]
15.
Under Christianity neither morality nor religion has any point of contact
with actuality. It offers purely imaginary causes ("God" "soul,"
"ego," "spirit," "free will"--or even "unfree"), and purely imaginary
effects ("sin" "salvation" "grace," "punishment," "forgiveness of
sins"). Intercourse between imaginary beings ("God," "spirits,"
"souls"); an imaginary natural history (anthropocentric; a total
denial of the concept of natural causes); an imaginary psychology
(misunderstandings of self, misinterpretations of agreeable or
disagreeable general feelings--for example, of the states of the nervus
sympathicus with the help of the sign-language of religio-ethical
balderdash--, "repentance," "pangs of conscience," "temptation by the
devil," "the presence of God"); an imaginary teleology (the "kingdom
of God," "the last judgment," "eternal life").--This purely fictitious
world, greatly to its disadvantage, is to be differentiated from the
world of dreams; the later at least reflects reality, whereas the former
falsifies it, cheapens it and denies it. Once the concept of "nature" had
been opposed to the concept of "God," the word "natural" necessarily took on
the meaning of "abominable"--the whole of that fictitious world has its
sources in hatred of the natural (--the real!--), and is no more than
evidence of a profound uneasiness in the presence of reality. . . . This
explains everything. Who alone has any reason for living his way out of
reality? The man who suffers under it. But to suffer from reality one must
be a botched reality. . . . The preponderance of pains over pleasures
is the cause of this fictitious morality and religion: but such a
preponderance also supplies the formula for decadence...
