What is the purpose of religious organisations?

I appreciate that at the ground level, religion provides many kindnesses and support for people.

My beef is with the organisations, the Churches and Temples, synagogues and Mosques and all those institutions and in particular, the hierarchies and power structures; frequently also the holders of those positions, especially at the upper end of the hierarchies. Look at their finances, and you can see very quickly that being in charge of such sums, will corrupt anybody. This list is from Wikipedia:

 This does not include say the Moslem Church in Iran, which has the whole country at its disposal, as do others.

 According to a 7-year-old Guardian article: Religion in the United States is worth $1.2tn a year, making it equivalent to the 15th largest national economy in the world, according to a study. With financial clout like that, of course religion gets involved in all aspects of everyday life.

The purpose of religious organisations has been a subject of debate and discussion throughout history. While many argue that their primary goal is to serve as a source of spiritual guidance, moral values, and community support, others assert that underlying these noble intentions is a pursuit of power. This perspective posits that religious organisations, regardless of their faith or denomination, often seek influence and control over individuals, societies, and even governments.

One of the key arguments supporting the idea that religious organisations aim for power is rooted in their historical role as influential institutions. Throughout various epochs, religious institutions have played pivotal roles in shaping political landscapes, cultural norms, and social structures. The alignment between religious and political authorities has often been a symbiotic relationship, with each reinforcing the power of the other. In many cases, religious leaders have wielded considerable influence over rulers and governments, contributing to the establishment of laws and societal norms that reflect their religious doctrines.

Furthermore, the organizational structure of religious institutions itself can be seen as a mechanism for accumulating and maintaining power. Hierarchical systems, with clergy at the top, allow for centralized control and decision-making. This concentration of power can be leveraged to influence followers, shape religious interpretations, and establish doctrines that serve the interests of the institution. The ability to dictate moral standards and guide the beliefs of a significant portion of the population provides religious organisations with a unique form of power.

Another aspect of the argument is the economic influence that religious organisations often command. Many religious institutions amass substantial wealth through donations, tithes, and various forms of financial support from their followers. This financial power allows them to engage in activities beyond the spiritual realm, such as funding educational institutions, hospitals, and charitable endeavours. However, it also opens the door to potential exploitation and manipulation, as financial contributions may come with expectations of reciprocal influence.

Moreover, the role of religious organisations in shaping public opinion and influencing social attitudes cannot be overlooked. Through preaching, religious teachings, and moral guidance, these institutions can impact how their followers perceive various issues, from social justice to political ideologies. This influence over the mindset of a community contributes to the religious organisation's ability to shape public discourse and, consequently, hold sway over political and societal dynamics.

In conclusion, while the primary purpose of religious organisations is often framed in terms of spiritual guidance and moral development, the pursuit of power cannot be entirely dismissed. The historical, organizational, economic, and social dimensions of religious institutions contribute to a nuanced understanding of their role in society, acknowledging both their positive contributions and the potential for power-seeking behaviour.

Zionism is the root cause of all troubles in the Middle East

In the post-second World War, the Zionists started their war to create a "homeland for Jews". People like the Stern Gang and others were classed as terrorists by the British Government, who managed Palestine at that time. The Zionists argument, put very simply, is that Israel was the promised land by God and still is, although it hasn't existed for the best part of a couple of thousand years. To me, a ridiculous argument and one which very many Jews did not and do not support either.

Imagine a homeland for Christians or Buddhists or Moslem, etc. Utterly absurd. Where would they be? A homeland is for individuals, not some kind of religious or ethnic group. Should all those who chose or married into the Jewish Faith be excluded, as compared to those whose ancestors have been Jews? Where do you draw the line?

But the guilt trip, once the details of the Holocaust were public, enabled the British and Americans to justify the Zionist view. Who cares about a few Arabs, let's just designate this as Israel and too bad for the locals. It is modern colonialism at its worst. The net result is that the Zionists were armed by the Brits and Yanks with modern warfare equipment and off they went, killing tens of thousands of Palestinians who had practically no weapons and couldn't defend themselves. Oh yes, since then several thousand Israelis have died, but tens of thousand of Palestinians died, then and since then.  Those who were defending their homeland were now dubbed as the terrorists.

There are still - after over 70 years - refugee camps for Palestinians. The Israelis, not content in stealing everything the Palestinians had, continued their expansionist policies by stealing ever more land and removing those Palestinians living there. Basically, they suffered the same justice as the Native Americans in the USA and Canada. But everyone forgets the history behind the current events. The only thing learnt from the second world war, was how to kill ever more people and how to use very spurious reasoning to justify the correctness of the killings. married

Antisemitism is not where I'm at. I don't approve of any religion. Why? Well, look at how many wars Religion has caused. None of them are any better than others. It's always been a power game. And this war in the Middle East is just more of the same. After all, the crusades were the Christians killing the Arabs and Jews. The story is the same, just the participants and the locations change. Human beings have forgotten who they are and have reduced themselves to the most inhumane way of life. Sad, sad, sad.

Many have called for a two-state solution, where both Israelis and Palestinians have the right to self-determination and live in peace side by side. Such a solution would require compromises, negotiations, and addressing the historical injustices and grievances of both sides. Dialogue, diplomacy, and negotiations are essential to finding a path forward.

Acknowledging the suffering and displacement experienced by the Palestinian population is an important step toward reconciliation. However, achieving such acknowledgment and addressing the issue of guilt is a complex process that will likely require engagement from all parties involved, including international actors and organizations.

Ultimately, a lasting solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should prioritize justice, equality, and the protection of human rights for all individuals in the region. This goal can only be achieved through peaceful dialogue and negotiation, rather than military means. International support and engagement can play a crucial role in facilitating these efforts and promoting a just and lasting resolution to the conflict.

However, I don't believe that Israelis are capable of acknowledging the utter injustice which the creation of their state has meant for the Palestinians. Zionists, like all zealots, have no sense of justice. Hopeless.

 For detailed information on the atrocities caused by the colonialist mind-set, check this site out.

Attributing the entirety of Middle East instability to Theodore Herzl's Zionism is a complex assertion that requires careful examination of historical events, political decisions, and the interplay of diverse factors in the region. Theodore Herzl, a key figure in the early Zionist movement, laid the groundwork for the establishment of a Jewish homeland, and his advocacy set in motion a series of events that have significantly influenced the Middle East's geopolitical dynamics.

The Zionist movement gained momentum in the late 19th century, driven by the desire to create a national homeland for the Jewish people. Herzl's seminal work, "The Jewish State," published in 1896, articulated the vision of a Jewish homeland as a solution to anti-Semitism and a means of ensuring the Jewish people's security and self-determination. The First Zionist Congress in 1897 marked the formal establishment of the World Zionist Organization, with Herzl as its leader.

The Balfour Declaration of 1917, which expressed British support for the establishment of a "national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine, reflected the growing influence of Zionist ideas on the international stage. However, the implementation of this vision faced opposition from the Arab inhabitants of Palestine and neighbouring Arab states, setting the stage for ongoing conflicts in the region.

The establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, following the United Nations partition plan, led to the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs and ignited the Arab-Israeli conflict. The root cause of much of the instability in the Middle East can be traced back to this pivotal moment, and Herzl's Zionist vision played a central role in shaping the events that followed.

One of the key arguments linking Herzl's Zionism to Middle East instability is the displacement of Palestinian Arabs during the establishment of Israel. The forced migration of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians resulted in deep-seated grievances, forming the core of the Palestinian refugee issue. This issue has been a constant source of tension and conflict, as generations of Palestinians continue to assert their right to return to their ancestral homes.

Moreover, Herzl's vision of a Jewish state in Palestine was inherently controversial, given the diverse religious and ethnic composition of the region. The coexistence of Jews, Muslims, and Christians had been a defining feature of the Middle East for centuries. The imposition of a Jewish state disrupted this delicate balance and sowed the seeds of religious and ethnic tensions that persist to this day.

The Arab-Israeli wars, including the conflicts in 1948, 1967, and 1973, further escalated hostilities and contributed to the overall instability in the region. The unresolved status of Jerusalem, considered sacred by Jews, Christians, and Muslims, has been a persistent flashpoint, reflecting the deep-seated religious and cultural dimensions of the conflict.

While it is an oversimplification to attribute the entire Middle East instability solely to Herzl's Zionism, it is undeniable that the establishment of Israel based on his vision has been a major catalyst for regional conflicts. The ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the broader Arab-Israeli tensions continue to shape the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East, highlighting the enduring impact of Herzl's Zionist ideology on the region's instability.

Autocratic countries of the world

I've been wondering what percentage of the world is currently run by autocratic governments, i.e. countries where the population doesn't have much to say in how the country is run.

I found a website called worldpopulationreview.com, which lists countries and populations, including a list of current dictators. Using their data for 2022, I came up with the following list:

According to this list, just over 39% of the world population is governed by a system where one person has the power.

If, on the other hand, the question is formulated more broadly as countries which are run by an autocratic system, it includes both China and India, the two most populous countries in the world. India likes to describe itself as the largest democracy in the world, but if you look at how it's governed, then the ruling party does pretty much what it likes. That list looks like this:

Of course, many will disagree with the list and the definition. Nevertheless, it is a view worth pondering. The first list of outright dictatorships alone reaches 39% of the population. Adding several countries which have a more diffuse leadership, but an autocratic style, increases the percentage to almost 60%. That is scary!

I find these statistics worrying. It seems to support my view that the world is splintering rather than pulling together to face the largest issues for humanity : climate change! There is much more cohesion in the autocratic countries, than in the western democracies, although each one fiercely defends the interests of the rulers, which are largely short-term gains at the expense of the longer term common weal.

Blame, instead of listening

The tendency to resort to blame rather than listening is a common phenomenon in human communication. When faced with conflicts, disagreements, or misunderstandings, people often find it easier to assign blame rather than engage in active listening and open dialogue. In this discussion, we will explore the reasons behind this behaviour and the importance of active listening for effective communication.

One reason why people resort to blame is the human instinct to protect oneself and maintain a positive self-image. By assigning blame to others, individuals can avoid taking responsibility for their own actions or shortcomings. Blaming others provides a sense of justification and can help preserve one's self-esteem. However, this approach only perpetuates a cycle of negativity and prevents the resolution of conflicts.

Another factor that contributes to the use of blame is the desire for control and power. Blaming shifts the focus away from the real issues at hand and directs attention towards finding fault in others. This can create a power dynamic where the blamer positions themselves as superior and in control, while the blamed party is put on the defensive. This dynamic hampers effective communication and prevents the parties involved from finding common ground or understanding each other's perspectives.

Moreover, blame often arises from a lack of active listening. Active listening is the practice of fully focusing on and understanding the speaker's message without interruption or judgment. When individuals fail to actively listen, they are more likely to misinterpret or misunderstand the speaker's intentions, leading to assumptions and miscommunication. This can fuel the urge to assign blame instead of seeking clarification or empathy.

Active listening is crucial for effective communication and conflict resolution. It involves giving undivided attention to the speaker, observing non-verbal cues, and asking clarifying questions to ensure a clear understanding of their message. By actively listening, individuals can gain insights into others' perspectives, needs, and emotions. This fosters empathy, understanding, and the ability to find constructive solutions.

To break the cycle of blame and foster better communication, it is important to cultivate a culture of active listening. This involves creating a safe and non-judgmental environment where individuals feel heard and respected. It requires individuals to set aside their own biases, assumptions, and need for control, and instead focus on understanding and empathizing with others.

Practising active listening also involves acknowledging one's own role in conflicts or misunderstandings. By taking responsibility for one's actions and actively seeking resolutions, individuals can shift the focus from blame to constructive problem-solving. This approach promotes collaboration, cooperation, and mutual respect.

In conclusion, the tendency to resort to blame rather than listening is a common communication challenge. It arises from the desire to protect oneself, assert control, and a lack of active listening. To overcome this tendency, it is important to cultivate a culture of active listening, empathy, and understanding. By actively listening, individuals can break the cycle of blame, foster effective communication, and promote constructive conflict resolution.