Re: the popiate of the people. I've always thought anti-clericalism and leftism were mutually implicating, myself, and love quoting the last priest/last king thing that Justin mentioned. Recently, though, I've had 2nd thoughts about associating *religion* with compensation, due to having just read Christopher Lasch's posthumous *Revolt of the Elites*. He points out that religion in the *prophetic* vein isn't consolatory at all--it makes things harder, not easier, for the believer. By contrast, especially in the light of feminist work on science and rationality, appreciating the psychological roots of the secular-humanist-Cartesian-scientist's stance--as a reaction-formation to anxiety, on Bordo's interpretation, e.g.--kinda turns the tables! On Mon, 23 Jan 1995, Jim Devine wrote: > Nathan's right: anti-clericalism fought the _established_ church. > Now we don't have that any more. It's fine as far as I'm concerned > if some people have religion. That doesn't alwsys always mean > that they're closed to reason. > > Marx thought that religion was the p opiate of the people, > but that people needed that kind of opium given the alienating > nature of society. Unlike the Young Hegelians, he decided to > put his energy into opposing the society not the symptim > symptom, that is. Makes sense to me. > > The hard-to-correct typo above suggests a pun: the Vatican > might be termed the "popiate." > > in pen-l solidarity, > > Jim Devine > [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ., Los Angeles, CA 90045-2699 USA > 310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950 > "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." > (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- K. Marx, paraphrasing > Dante. >
