In the present thread the error appears in the form of explaining the politics of fundamentalists in terms of their religius thought rather than explaining their religious thought in terms of their politics. Fundamentalism does NOT lead to reactionary thought, but much current reactionary thought finds expression in terms of fundamentalist religion. Hence a critique of the religious beliefs of fundamentalists lacks political bite -- i.e., does not constitutute an explanation of their politics.
But what is Parenti trying to do? His book will not change the mind of any fundamentalists, nor do I think it will help any leftist t o reain a leftists. All I can see it doing is providing entetainment for atheists on the left. The world is not changed by its presence, nor does it flow as far as I can see from this thread from the activity of changing the world.
So I guess that Parenti, as exhbited in a selection of remarks from this thread, is in fact an aggressive idealist, proceding on the assumption that ideas have a history of their own independent of social actuality.
My eyes are getting really bad, and I have not attempted to read the thread completely or read more than scattered pieces carefully.
Carrol
James Heartfield wrote:
>
> Chris Doss's error explained...
>
> 'The shibboleth that the [South German] historical school [of law] has adopted is the study of sources, and they have carried his love of sources to such an extreme that they advise the captain not to sail his boat on the river hut at its source.' Karl Marx, 'The Philosophical Manifesto of the Historical School of Law, 1842
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk