Econstudentlog

More II

A little more from the book:

Priests are […] responsible for the education of children and adolescents, in which quite as much stress is laid on moral as on academic training. They do their utmost to ensure that, while children are still at an impressionable age, they’re given the right ideas about things – the sort of ideas best calculated to preserve the structure of their society. If thoroughly absorbed in childhood, these ideas will persist throughout adult life, and so contribute greatly to the safety of the state, which is never seriously threatened except by moral defects arising from wrong ideas.

Male priests are allowed to marry – for there’s nothing to stop a woman from becoming a priest, although women aren’t often chosen for the job, and only elderly widows are eligible. As a matter of fact, clergymen’s wives form the cream of Utopian society, for no public figure is respected more than a priest. So much so that, even if a priest commits a crime, he’s not liable to prosecution. They just leave him to God and his own conscience, since, no matter what he has done, they don’t think it right for any human being to lay hands on a man who has been dedicated as a special offering to God. They find this rule quite easy to keep, because priests represent such a tiny minority, and because they’re so carefully chosen. After all, it’s not really very likely that a man who has come out top of a list of excelleent candidates, and who owes his appointment entirely to his moral character, should suddenly become vicious and corrupt.

I don’t even need to comment on this section, do I? It kinda speaks for itself.

June 23, 2008 - Posted by | books, quotes, religion

2 Comments »

  1. Det er sjovt at læse More igen. Jeg læste More og Machiavelli i gymnasiet, og skrev en opgave, hvor jeg sammenlignede dem. Jeg kan huske, at jeg dengang tog for givet, at More var den “gode”, mens Machiavelli var den “onde” – sikkert fordi den første “ville det gode”, mens den anden lavede plads for det “onde” i sit system.

    I dag er det ret tydeligt, at More var endnu en totalitær, religiøs lunatic med farlige ideer, mens Machiavelli var en fornuftig og realistisk mand, der forholdt sig til, hvad der kunne lade sig gøre i den virkelige verden.

    “Fantasien til magten”, er det ikke et af Enhedslistens slagord? Ellers tak…

    Comment by Whiteberg | June 24, 2008 | Reply

  2. Ja, ellers tak. Hvis More fremstår som ‘den gode’ i en komparativ analyse har jeg ikke meget lyst til at se ‘den onde’.

    Når det kommer til 68’ere i almindelighed, og ( “humanistiske” ) gymnasielærere i særdeleshed, er en teori jeg hælder lidt til, at mange af dem egentligt aldrig er blevet sådan rigtig voksne. Det gælder især de barnløse. De har aldrig haft behov for det, og derfor har de fundet det helt naturligt at holde fast i deres ungdommelige idealisme og utopisme – de har ikke noget at sætte i stedet for. Sjovt nok er der ikke, mig bekendt, nogen dansk skønlitterær forfatter som har taget denne vinkel op, og har skrevet et værk på baggrund af den. Jeg har lidt indtryk af, at den virkelighedsfjerne politiske utopist i manges øjne er sådan en lidt harmløs, uskyldig skabning. Det gælder også når det ‘ungdommelige overmod’ ikke rigtigt længere kan bruges som undskyldning, når personen har krydset det halve århundrede. Det skyldes vel primært at de fleste af os ukritisk giver den slags mennesker lov til at male deres egne selvportrætter. Hvor er alle fotograferne blevet af? Måske er utopisten harmløs. Men utopien er ikke.

    Comment by US | June 24, 2008 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: