3 ms·
It looks like with religion not in the picture as predominantly as in the past, peasants still don’t argue against the rules. If religion is not needed for cont
by cgio 12d ago
It looks like with religion not in the picture as predominantly as in the past, peasants still don’t argue against the rules. If religion is not needed for control, then your argument is weakened. It also looks like religion has been around before peasants and is present even in relatively flat hierarchy communities and proto-societies where control was less relevant or hard. Historically, power structures co-opt rather than invent religion.
- bcjdjsndon 10d ago> It looks like with religion not in the picture as predominantly as in the past, peasants still don’t argue against the rules. The priestly class has become less relevant, yes. I never said it was the only game in town, or the only way to justify force > It also looks like religion has been around before peasants and is present even in relatively flat hierarchy communities and proto-societies where control was less relevant or hard. I wouldn't equate that to today's religion. Pagan beliefs about the sun chasing the moon aren't what I'm talking about, I can forgive true misunderstandings about physics and astronomy etc... I'm talking about prohibitive moral codes originating from a ruling class concerning the domestic and mundane > Historically, power structures co-opt rather than invent religion. Couldn't have put it better myself.