We all have our areas of foolishness, but some are more dangerous than others. To me, horoscopes and tarot cards look like foolishness, but they don't do massive harm. A clairvoyant may even be a good counsellor, and a tarot card may provoke a person to think more than they otherwise would, because of their openness to it. On the whole I see them as negative, but I know the human tendency to see patterns where they don't exist, and I don't try to convert my mystical friends.

Beliefs in a religion that you would kill or die for are more blatantly Bad, yet still have many adherents. It was the Europeans who led the way in this particular form of evil in the middle ages and through he Reformation - which is important to remember when we think about those movements within Islam that pursue violence today. Islam today is actually much more enlightened than the Christianity of several centuries ago (that's faint praise) in that there is a large mass of Muslims who abhor the extremists, and believe in harmony between religions.

Then there are those religions that encourage dysfunctional behavior - less blatantly evil, but cruel and harmful in their impacts nonetheless. Telling people who are attracted to the same sex that this is not an avenue for them causes much sadness, and encouraging celibacy as a "higher" calling potentially increases the risk of "celibates" finding twisted and selfish outlets for their sexuality, in particular the abuse of children.

I know I have my own beliefs that cause harm as well. I consider it essential to my own growth that my beliefs - intellectual, personal, relational, about myself and others - are open to change.

The Church of Marx

Then there are Marxists - a confusing breed, just as perplexing in their own way as the adherents of oppressive religions, and just as inclined to select the arguments and versions of history that support their beliefs.

I had a fascinating argument with a pamphleteering Marxist in Sydney a couple of years ago. He was from the International Committee of the Fourth International if I remember right - he was Trotskyite, in any case - and wanted to use positive words that we all approve of, like democracy, in places where they didn't belong. The conversation as I remember it:

Here's another belief that I don't get: that Stalin was bad (okay, I agree with that part) and Trotsky was good. If the Soviet leadership had stayed true, everything would have been great.

So... you're telling me that we have a system in which only a few have a say, and we the vanguard gain power by force, then rule in the name of people, who do not have a voice unless they subscribe to views that we approve.  Then for Stalin to do what he did is somehow an aberration? I'm sorry, it looks to me like the natural course of events - where power is gained by violence and not quickly transformed into an actual democracy (where all have a voice without discrimination) then in the absence of any concept of democratic legitimacy, the strong and wily will gain power. To naively suggest otherwise is to leave things open for a long term repressive dictatorship, and this is exactly what happened in quite a few countries around the world in the 20th century, with the result of tens of millions of deaths, hundreds of millions living without personal freedom, economies that frankly sucked, and much more suffering besides.

That's all stating the obvious... and yet the beliefs prevail. Is this what I think it is - a dangerous and malignant foolishness - or am I missing something?