[continued from previous message]   
      
   Last, but not by any means least, a psycho-social analysis of the impact which   
   Judaism and Christianity have had on their respective communities reveals the   
   most critical distinction between these two religions. The Diaspora Jews,   
   because of their strong    
   ethnic identity, still vaguely associated with the land of Israel, were always   
   viewed a bit warily by non-Jewish political leaders, who could not appreciate   
   nor fully trust them due to their apparently divided loyalty. Today after the   
   restoration of the    
   Jewish state, this question arises perhaps more strongly than ever – which way   
   would the Jews lean if their native country should go to war with Israel. But   
   this dual nationality is not the only factor involved in the so-called Jewish   
   Problem. The Jewish    
   superiority complex has made it difficult generally for the Jews to accept any   
   worldly authority, even including their own kings long ago. Stories abound   
   concerning Jews who accepted death, rather than to kneel before a foreign   
   leader, or convert to a    
   foreign faith. By the account given in Esther, Jews faced the threat of   
   imminent and total extermination because of the refusal of a single Jew,   
   Mordecai, to bow down before Haman, the King's Prime Minister. [390] In sharp   
   contrast, the Christians have    
   generally sought to be loyal and obedient subjects of any worldly power which   
   presided over them. Where the Jews always rebelled against paying tribute to a   
   foreign King, the Christians were exhorted time and again to pay whatever   
   taxes were demanded. [   
   391] Clearly, the Jews were rather a difficult people to colonize and exploit;   
   the Christians were usually very easy prey. [392]   
      
   This last point is extremely significant when one considers the method of   
   exploitation adopted universally by corrupt political leaders, and the   
   relationship of those same political leaders to the propagation of popular   
   religion. At first it may seem    
   curious that Christianity should owe its widespread support more to the   
   efforts of political leaders than religious ones. [393] But none can deny the   
   tremendous boost to Christianity when the Emperor of Rome declared it to be   
   the official state religion.    
   In Hungary and Poland, to name just two examples, the first Christian converts   
   were the respective Kings. Similarly, it was the King of Norway and the King   
   of Sweden who imposed Christianity forcibly on their own countries, and then   
   exported the religion    
   to Iceland and Finland. Over the past 1000 years, Christian missionaries have   
   been sent in the vanguard of any expedition for conquest of new territories by   
   the Spanish, the British and, more recently, the (North) Americans. In this   
   way, the Philippines,    
   India, China, Japan, Australia, Africa, South America, Central America and   
   North America were all at least partially Christianized prior to their   
   extensive and/or intensive economic despoliation.   
      
   The Christianization of these countries amounted to an almost total conversion   
   whenever the priests could gain a stranglehold on the educational system   
   which, in fact, they did in most countries. Thereafter, by denigrating and   
   often destroying much of    
   the indigenous cultural expression, especially the local language and the   
   local social and religious customs, the Church infused such a psychic complex   
   in the colonized people that they came to consider themselves as being   
   innately inferior to that    
   nation which lorded its imperial power over them. The people of these colonies   
   were “brainwashed” to feel that it was right and proper for them to work as   
   virtual slaves of a distant foreign master. [394] Politico-economic   
   exploitation has always rested    
   on the foundation of psycho-economic exploitation. Wherever or whenever direct   
   political subjugation became impossible, or unprofitable, to establish or   
   maintain, still that psycho-economic exploitation generally continued to reap   
   large profits through    
   the medium of multinational corporations in what is now commonly referred to   
   as neocolonialism.   
      
   Here it is only fair to remark that Karl Marx was absolutely correct in his   
   observation that religion generally serves as an “opiate of the people”,   
   administered by those in high position to preserve their power. But, it must   
   also be noted that not every    
   religion is equally suitable as a tool for psycho-economic exploitation. By   
   and large, Judaism is somewhat counterproductive in this respect, whereas   
   Christianity – both Catholicism and Protestantism – are virtually ideal tools   
   for this treacherous work.    
   [395] Perhaps the early Church was not such a facile servant of tyranny,   
   though the seeds of suppression were surely there. Unquestionably, by the end   
   of the 4th Century, Christianity stood first in the Western world with respect   
   to this demonic task.    
   And, for this dubious accomplishment, a large portion of the credit must go to   
   the Roman Emperor Constantine who, back at the beginning of the 4th Century,   
   had the political foresight to set aside the official ban on Christianity. In   
   313, by the Edict of    
   Milan, Constantine declared Christianity a lawful religion. Largely due to his   
   efforts, the Church dismantled and dismissed most of its apocalyptic   
   expectations, and became an earthly institution allied with the state to   
   maintain order. The Church has    
   rigorously maintained this position ever since that time. [396] Constantine   
   forced or enticed the Church to come inside the political boundaries of the   
   Roman Empire; and, with the Church elders' enthusiastic acceptance of that   
   mundane limitation, it was    
   inevitable that Christianity would become the Imperial Church, with all of the   
   power and all of the corruption that this entailed. Today, despite any   
   philosophical or practical differences which exist between the Catholic Church   
   and the Protestant Church,   
    one thing they do have in common, i.e. both remain the Imperial Church or,   
   perhaps more accurately, the Imperialistic Church.   
      
   Adam Smith   
   Before concluding this discussion of practical religion, a few words should be   
   said about two interesting and perhaps unexpected offshoots of Christianity   
   –that is, capitalism and communism. There is one Marxist critique which   
   derides all social sciences    
   as nothing but ideologies in disguise. In other words, all social sciences are   
   alleged to be founded on certain specific values and assumptions, which   
   prejudice the selection and the interpretation of data in analysis of social   
   phenomena. [397] Although    
   it seems doubtful that this rule could be universally or eternally applicable,   
   one is inclined, nonetheless, to consider the far-reaching effects of   
   religious belief, or religious dogma, upon the fields of social science and   
   social philosophy. To this    
   end, let us examine briefly the work of Adam Smith, and also of Karl Marx   
   himself, in light of their underlying values and assumptions.   
      
   Little is known about the life of Adam Smith, the father of modern capitalism.   
   [398] However, what is known suffices to establish a clear and undeniable link   
   between Smith's religious disposition and his socio-economic thought. Better,   
   it establishes his    
   socio-economic thought as a direct consequence of his British Protestant   
   outlook.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)