Why the title and the artist's name are not mentioned in the video? I'd love to learn more about it. Also, for anyone interested in 20th century Russian art, there is a rather great overview documentary: ruclips.net/video/bY-PfLRyvxI/видео.html
I like the video as a whole, but a few of the speaker's implications bug me. "You have to understand [religious belief] in order to treat each other well and properly," for instance, seems to reject the idea that an atheistic worldview could lead to anything moral, that atheists need to "steal" morality from those with a religious worldview to not be immoral bastards, and I absolutely *hate* that people think that. It's insulting. I'm not sure if that's what the speaker meant, but given how she lionizes religion, it wouldn't surprise me if she thought it.
My impression was quite the contrary: it seems, the speaker gave credence to the non hagiocracy societies without any religious vertical all penetrating power institutions. The tone of the narration was very tolerant and understanding.
How very sensitive you are! It must be very difficult to have a conversation with you if you arrive at this distant conclusions departing from a calm and patient introduction like this.
I've been pondering this a bit lately too. If belief is such an inherent trait in humans as this channel says, then how come such a big portion of the youth is secular nowadays? From where is this coming? Are we being taught that religion is wrong in some way at some point in our lives? I think the answer is the other way, that religion isn't an inherent trait in us, but rather it is inherited (word play yes...) by our environment. Religion in today's society is in an exponential decline; our parents have been slightly secularized, and when this lack of strong belief is then passed onto their children, the interest diminishes even more. It all starts with modern concepts of evaluating career and sex more than family and such. Our society today reminds us very much of the USSR or even Nazi Germany in some aspects. In Germany it didn't matter if the means of production was privatized or in the public sector, for as long as the people were united behind one cause they would work the best they could for said cause. It's frightening how little we evaluate things that actually matter. And kids find church boring... because it doesn't pander to children and their short attention span, but then again I think that belief has always been a hard subject for children at any place and time in history to understand. But then we are seeing quite the opposite in religions such as Islam and Judaism... Islam is growing stronger than ever and the Orthodox community in Israel is also growing rapidly. With western society's cultural shift we are committing societal suicide by forgetting what everyone else holds dear.
Nobody i would like to comment on how come we have so many atheists. I think it's because religion is shown as something from our past which should move beyond. Also, most atheists i see online think it means they don't explicitly believe in god (but the word actually means they are certain god does not exist) TL;DR biased education. Not sure if good or bad.
There's a difference between spiritualism and belief in the organised religion around you. People can still have beliefs, while inherently disagreeing in the multinational profiteering corporation that the church can be. A lot of youth see that the organised religions have too much say in lawmaking and are their own tax havens. The disdain is just the same for them as starbucks and facebook, except starbucks doesn't boss you around and tell you they are morally superior while doing those things. The church in my country says they are pro life, while they buried 800 babies who died of malnutrition and preventable illness in magdalene laundries, then buried them in a septic tank. Not to mention all of the paedophiles they still drag their feet on punishing. In my country those are massive reasons why a lot of young people are cynical about the church's ability to tell us what is right. Whereas the amount of people looking for a moral guidance is probably the same, they are not going to trust the establishment. Some may believe science replaces religion.
…Possibly… any homiletical action is supposed to be induced by a kind of seraphic revelation - dream - calling… Very often any organizational structures (secular, spiritual) can be discrediting themselves by the modus operandi of some of its reps…
The true power of religion and the secret to it's endurance in modern times is that it does not promise anything real and thus can never be verified. Political systems or belief systems that try to do away with religion all need to deliver in the here and now. As this is never possible on a long term basis, because everything fails, religion will always be the winner. Even it's internal contradictions are a source of strength, not weakness. That is why political systems and regimes that prop themselves with religion will ultimately be the more durable ones.
Do you mean 法家？....It is not a religion but a school of thought with the doctrine of repressing, poverishing the mass and benefitting the ruling elite, i.e. The very worst of Chinese traditions.
Bit of a stretch to include this in an exhibition about religion, imho. I'd like to see an analysis that's a bit more in-depth than "lol communism new religion".
All these beliefs across generations and cultures: are any actually TRUE? One would think the latter is far more important. And secularism prevents governments from mandating participation. That’s all it is. What communism imposed is not secular but tyrannical, because it is imposed.
But what about thBut what about the welfare of the “Swedish - Norwegians Socialism” as is being very often called in publicists literature?.. Something is being imposed there? Including the high levels of social protection?.. e well
So long as people are free to choose what they believe, be it religious or non-religious, and government protects that freedom, by being secular, than all the rest become separate issues. Secularism is not about imposing non-belief; it's about preventing government from imposing *anything.* And secular simply relates to the imposition of religion.
Petr Frizen, This "Socialism" is basically high taxes. I'm simplifying, but the point is, in Sweden etc it's mainly about redistribution of wealth and improved working conditions. A lot of nationwide enterprises are privatised, even some railways and electricity (btw, are they in the UK?). And of course it's negotiable in parliaments and in the public, should they want to downgrade the "socialist" policies. No ideology is imposed upon citizens, as opposed to what happened in the USSR. Your name sounds Russian or Polish. Are you from there? I mean, do you want to know anything else about how it worked then or do you already have the same experience living in a post-Soviet country as myself?
My first name: Petr - is Russian, my last name: Frizen / Friesen - is ethnic Friesian. Yes, I live in The Russian Federation. I didn’t live in the times of the USSR as the adult (working life), thus, can’t be competently commenting on the taxation of those times. Yes, USSR was very much full of ideology (pretty much like any other society at those times)… But private property on the results of production was allowed, though, again I don’t know what was the taxation on the sales… Private ownership of the means of production was banned. You claim that the taxes in all the socialist countries are very high… I can’t make any comparative resume on that. But if we consider the money issues quite a curious detail comes up to my mind. All / most of the religious organizations (whether in the G7, G8 or in the RF / USSR) do claim the tithe (10%) of individual income; CPSU (Communist Party of the Soviet Union) claimed from its members, as far as I know / don’t know (as never made any payments myself) not more than 5% of the individual income… If you have any idea about the taxes on the average income - salary in USSR and in the other countries it would be very interesting to view the comparative chart…
Why the title and the artist's name are not mentioned in the video? I'd love to learn more about it.
Also, for anyone interested in 20th century Russian art, there is a rather great overview documentary: ruclips.net/video/bY-PfLRyvxI/видео.html
Nice
People power, power in community, and through direct action will always be more powerful than any religious zeal.
I like the video as a whole, but a few of the speaker's implications bug me. "You have to understand [religious belief] in order to treat each other well and properly," for instance, seems to reject the idea that an atheistic worldview could lead to anything moral, that atheists need to "steal" morality from those with a religious worldview to not be immoral bastards, and I absolutely *hate* that people think that. It's insulting.
I'm not sure if that's what the speaker meant, but given how she lionizes religion, it wouldn't surprise me if she thought it.
My impression was quite the contrary: it seems, the speaker gave credence to the non hagiocracy societies without any religious vertical all penetrating power institutions. The tone of the narration was very tolerant and understanding.
How very sensitive you are! It must be very difficult to have a conversation with you if you arrive at this distant conclusions departing from a calm and patient introduction like this.
I would argue atheism has been with human society since its earliest days. Not every homo sapien stood up, just to kneel down to a god figure.
Well said.
But, an exceptional amount of people are claiming atheism & no spiritualism nowadays.
What does the speaker think of this?
I've been pondering this a bit lately too. If belief is such an inherent trait in humans as this channel says, then how come such a big portion of the youth is secular nowadays? From where is this coming? Are we being taught that religion is wrong in some way at some point in our lives?
I think the answer is the other way, that religion isn't an inherent trait in us, but rather it is inherited (word play yes...) by our environment. Religion in today's society is in an exponential decline; our parents have been slightly secularized, and when this lack of strong belief is then passed onto their children, the interest diminishes even more. It all starts with modern concepts of evaluating career and sex more than family and such.
Our society today reminds us very much of the USSR or even Nazi Germany in some aspects. In Germany it didn't matter if the means of production was privatized or in the public sector, for as long as the people were united behind one cause they would work the best they could for said cause. It's frightening how little we evaluate things that actually matter.
And kids find church boring... because it doesn't pander to children and their short attention span, but then again I think that belief has always been a hard subject for children at any place and time in history to understand.
But then we are seeing quite the opposite in religions such as Islam and Judaism... Islam is growing stronger than ever and the Orthodox community in Israel is also growing rapidly.
With western society's cultural shift we are committing societal suicide by forgetting what everyone else holds dear.
Nobody i would like to comment on how come we have so many atheists.
I think it's because religion is shown as something from our past which should move beyond.
Also, most atheists i see online think it means they don't explicitly believe in god (but the word actually means they are certain god does not exist)
TL;DR biased education.
Not sure if good or bad.
There's a difference between spiritualism and belief in the organised religion around you. People can still have beliefs, while inherently disagreeing in the multinational profiteering corporation that the church can be. A lot of youth see that the organised religions have too much say in lawmaking and are their own tax havens. The disdain is just the same for them as starbucks and facebook, except starbucks doesn't boss you around and tell you they are morally superior while doing those things.
The church in my country says they are pro life, while they buried 800 babies who died of malnutrition and preventable illness in magdalene laundries, then buried them in a septic tank. Not to mention all of the paedophiles they still drag their feet on punishing. In my country those are massive reasons why a lot of young people are cynical about the church's ability to tell us what is right.
Whereas the amount of people looking for a moral guidance is probably the same, they are not going to trust the establishment. Some may believe science replaces religion.
Ashley Feawen i said no spiritualism, which is religion adjacent.
…Possibly… any homiletical action is supposed to be induced by a kind of seraphic revelation - dream - calling… Very often any organizational structures (secular, spiritual) can be discrediting themselves by the modus operandi of some of its reps…
The true power of religion and the secret to it's endurance in modern times is that it does not promise anything real and thus can never be verified. Political systems or belief systems that try to do away with religion all need to deliver in the here and now. As this is never possible on a long term basis, because everything fails, religion will always be the winner. Even it's internal contradictions are a source of strength, not weakness. That is why political systems and regimes that prop themselves with religion will ultimately be the more durable ones.
Putin completely understands what you say in your last sentence.
In ancient China, Legalism was a form of religion just like Doaism and Confucianism so this is a type of an attempt at legalism i guess.
Do you mean 法家？....It is not a religion but a school of thought with the doctrine of repressing, poverishing the mass and benefitting the ruling elite, i.e. The very worst of Chinese traditions.
Bit of a stretch to include this in an exhibition about religion, imho. I'd like to see an analysis that's a bit more in-depth than "lol communism new religion".
All these beliefs across generations and cultures: are any actually TRUE? One would think the latter is far more important. And secularism prevents governments from mandating participation. That’s all it is. What communism imposed is not secular but tyrannical, because it is imposed.
But what about thBut what about the welfare of the “Swedish - Norwegians Socialism” as is being very often called in publicists literature?.. Something is being imposed there? Including the high levels of social protection?.. e well
So long as people are free to choose what they believe, be it religious or non-religious, and government protects that freedom, by being secular, than all the rest become separate issues. Secularism is not about imposing non-belief; it's about preventing government from imposing *anything.* And secular simply relates to the imposition of religion.
Petr Frizen,
This "Socialism" is basically high taxes. I'm simplifying, but the point is, in Sweden etc it's mainly about redistribution of wealth and improved working conditions. A lot of nationwide enterprises are privatised, even some railways and electricity (btw, are they in the UK?). And of course it's negotiable in parliaments and in the public, should they want to downgrade the "socialist" policies. No ideology is imposed upon citizens, as opposed to what happened in the USSR.
Your name sounds Russian or Polish. Are you from there? I mean, do you want to know anything else about how it worked then or do you already have the same experience living in a post-Soviet country as myself?
My first name: Petr - is Russian, my last name: Frizen / Friesen - is ethnic Friesian. Yes, I live in The Russian Federation. I didn’t live in the times of the USSR as the adult (working life), thus, can’t be competently commenting on the taxation of those times. Yes, USSR was very much full of ideology (pretty much like any other society at those times)… But private property on the results of production was allowed, though, again I don’t know what was the taxation on the sales… Private ownership of the means of production was banned. You claim that the taxes in all the socialist countries are very high… I can’t make any comparative resume on that. But if we consider the money issues quite a curious detail comes up to my mind. All / most of the religious organizations (whether in the G7, G8 or in the RF / USSR) do claim the tithe (10%) of individual income; CPSU (Communist Party of the Soviet Union) claimed from its members, as far as I know / don’t know (as never made any payments myself) not more than 5% of the individual income… If you have any idea about the taxes on the average income - salary in USSR and in the other countries it would be very interesting to view the comparative chart…