addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscrossdots-three-verticaleditemptyheartexporteye-with-lineeyefacebookfolderfullheartglobegmailgooglegroupshelp-with-circleimageimagesinstagramFill 1linklocation-pinm-swarmSearchmailmessagesminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1ShapeoutlookpersonJoin Group on CardStartprice-ribbonShapeShapeShapeShapeImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruserwarningyahoo

response to Richard

From: richard b.
Sent on: Saturday, December 22, 2012 12:30 PM
Richard,

I think you're correct that society improves one step at a time....but 
it also regresses the same way.   That's the mechanism of all change.

"Traditional" Christmases might have been events of fornication and 
drunkenness....but so was daily life.  Perhaps it's the "any excuse for 
a party" school of excess.
I don't think the disapproval of Puritans can be be read as an even 
handed critique.  They attacked all "excess" rather across the 
board....that it had a "religious" format no doubt was particularly 
inciteful...but a flower in your button hole could get one pilloried or 
stoned.

Rather than a "moral" yardstick I'm more prone to Marxist (economic) 
(cui bono...who benefits?) measurements.
The poverty, starvation and deprivation so prevalent in earlier eras was 
a product of individuals lacking opportunities to easily survive, much 
less better themselves.  Feudalism and it's mercantilist aftermaths were 
notoriously bad.

I agree that all change is fought by those with positive positions in 
the status-quo.  Even within destitute families....those with even 
marginal power or influence might resist any change for the better that 
might dislodge them from their positions...."repres­sive" "conservative" 
and "regressive" positions are often held by the very poor and 
destitute....who might see ANY change as threatening.  who might be most 
most likely to lose status from progressive social directions.

Religion isn't a different type of social power....it's among the 
"non-wealth" influences....those who do not covet power and influence 
(eg.  stereotypical Quaker or Buddhists) are less likey to abuse 
religious influence....for by enforcing extreme views that power is 
wielded and held.


Always a pleasure,       richard

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy