| It's called "good citizenship"
"Religion could only work to produce a truely egalitarian society when it uses force. Not neccesarily force of arms, but mental indoctrination. Egalitarianism, unless temporary or simply coincidental, is not possible without limiting freedom."
"Mental indoctrination" seems to be your very loaded term for what is usually described as socially acceptable behavior, good citizenship, obeying the rules of society, etc.
Religious communitarian societies do not use force but they do use "mental indoctrination" just like all societies do. The difference is religious commitment without which people are prone to social statistics, i.e., the bell curve where at the ends you get either rigid conformity or anti-social behavior. Religious beliefs strongly instilled throughout the religious society circumvents this type of behavior distribution.
Does religious behavior contradict individual freedom? Oh, yes, but when it's all done on a strictly voluntary basis, i.e., no one's compelled to join a religious society, where's the lack of freedom? You don't like it-you quit or are booted out.
When I was active in the communal movement in the early '70's, we were in contact with Israeli kibbutzim and often cited their methods of egalitarian communitarianism but even then there were growing signs that the 2nd and 3rd generations of kibbutz children were leaving the egalitarian kibbutzim for life in the "real" world of general Israeli society. Our counterculture generation saw the same phenomena, e.g., both my kids were raised in their formative years in communal living situations but both rejected that lifestyle and now are part of the American middle class. Again, religious commitment is stronger and that's why Amish and Mennonites do not lose very many children to regular society. Israeli kibbutzim had a lot of atheists just as Israeli Jewish society does. Can't force the ethic of sharing without religious commitment. |