A penny dropped recently about Marx's famous opiate of the people quip.

A In the case of the Church of England (dearly though I love it), it is a narcotic which the working classes of England have always found totally nonaddictive, (except occasionally in the past in a bells and smells mode).

B Religion can certainly act as the opiate of the ruling classes.  The Romanoffs, the Stuarts, Haile Selassie and the Bourbons got a dreadful shock when their people wanted to get rid of them, which their religious beliefs led them to think impossible.

Although religion can work oppressively, there are a whole load of cases where religion has inspired and sustained opposition to oppression (Martin Luther King, Irish nationalism, the Tolpuddle Martyrs - all methodists, Solidarity in Poland, and so on.)

Interesting! I was doing a little scrabbling around myself on this. Grove doesn't come down firmly on a date for the Four Part Mass but the implication seems to be that, on theological/political grounds, it really 'ought' to have been written very early in Tallis's career, no later than about 1830 [Doh! Make that 1530. ]  after which time it would have become unacceptable. But then it goes on to suggest that, stylistically, it seems to have much in common with other works that Tallis was writing during Edward's V1's reign (!). The idea that it might be as late as the time of Mary (when Tallis did write one large scale Mass setting) seems to be ruled out on stylistic grounds.  

The Four Part Mass doesn't get a mention at all in Peter Phillips' English Sacred Music, 1549-1649, which would be fair enough if it was indeed as early as 1530.  

[And I probably should have specified authors Paul Doe and David Allinson rather than just 'Grove'. Tut, tut.]

D'oh! My story is that I was following the stylistic lead set by you and Richard, Don B. Inaccuracy is the new precision.   

I think all of that is roughly what incre was trying to say, isn't it? (Except that somehow I find myself wanting to agree now, which I didn't before. )

I am not, in that question, questioning his right to 'have' a particular religion, but rather asking if this is, in some sense, necessary for him. (I assume that the answer will affirm the validity of certain other religious affiliations).

Yes, I've been rather in that mood recently.  Largely down to the Keats I've been reading.

No reason!  I would do without "good old-fashioned religion" (interpreted as "organized religion") because it's rather oppressive, in my experience, and much more so in the experience of millions of others.  I understand that many other things are also oppressive.  Maybe other people would have us retain more of the religious architecture than I, but I don't see the justification for them myself, and can happily go without.

I know.  I understand, to some small extent, the various values that people interpret Christianity as historically having had, while not being expert enough to say anything about their reasonability myself.  But people can change the world.  And talking of ideals can be, practically, a good way of justifying (in the reasonable sense) tendencies.

Quip: God clearly thought otherwise.
Otherwise: I understand that it's important to be pragmatic.  But then there's traditionalism (I'm not accusing anybody here of this, merely pointing out that it is a tendency), which one should not take too seriously I think.

This refers to you, or to me, or to society at large?

This is just one Church amongst many, of course.

Ah; a different angle again.

Good and bad, yes.  What makes such movements good or bad in my mind isn't (from what little I can think of) their religious content, but their human content.  But what about things like the scopes monkey trials or the modern Intelligent Design movement: surely one can psychologize plenty, but it seems that one can much more easily say "this person's idea of religion is deeply flawed". Of course, if someone else said this, I would say that the reason it's flawed is naturalistic, not religious.  So I'm not sure what I'm saying in this paragraph. Ho hum...

Ok; have just read George's comment. Bugger it I'm going to post this now and think about it for a bit before posting more.

Possibly because he is posing problems rather than putting forward rather naively-worded reactions. (saying this, I do *try* to at least not be flat-out incorrect, which is something, right? [moved to the "personal insecurities thread]).


Nah it's not.  We just work with what we've got.  I don't think anyone here cares much for the wording of the title.

I agree that this is really an important issue.

But why should we?  This seems to be a big issue.  For instance, growing up in lower-class Saudi Arabia, one has little choice what to believe (or give heavy-duty lip-service to) in a lot of circumstances.

But in many circumstances I can't really hold it against people.  But I'd be interested in hearing any evidence about the moral superiority of people without religion to people with. (this is taking social class/economic background/&c into account).

Many people would argue against that though.  But I imagine, working within a religious framework when one is not religious might seem a rather hopelessly inefficient task.

That didn't seem too stark at all to me!

DB - to an agnostic like me who would like to believe in something more firmly, this reads as a most persuasive and concise few sentences. Thank you for it.