Yes, and yes... and yes...Neoplato wrote:Andromeda, I think we're saying the same thing. Laws are required to ensure the stability of society and rituals are required to ensure the stability of a specific religious institution.
These aren't "bad" overall, but they are a controlling influence. Do I interpret your position correctly?
First let me expand the definition of a 'law' and a 'ritual' as I thought of them. A 'law' is a societal tool, a 'ritual' is also a societal tool... 'laws' andor 'rituals' do not 'have a life of their own'... they are tools like a hammer or a microscope.
Laws/rituals are more than just a requirement to help ensure the stability of a society; or any group of persons gathered in any form of societal interaction, including a religious group. The 'laws/rituals' are a basic functional component that was necessary to even begin the process of creating the society. Without 'laws/rituals' in some form, however weird or unlikely they may have been, the society would not have come into being.
Therefore, the 'laws/rituals' are an integral functional component of the foundation of the society and cannot be done away with or altered without altering the society itself; Much as someone cannot continue to stand on a rock and decide to use another tool to start breaking the rock into smaller peices... eventually someone will fall, metaphorically speaking.
The perceptual differentiation someone may have made between societies/laws and religio/ritual is perhaps not quite perfectly correct. Rituals could perform the same function as laws in any society, religio or not-religio. Laws could perform the same function in any religious group. Both are simply a form of expression and enforcement of acceptable behavior in that society... tools.
Some persons may respond more willingly to a ritualistic enforcement of behavior, whereas some may respond more willingly to some other form for enforcement of behavior. It depends on the mix of perceptions and personalities and expectations of the persons that constitute the society.
The 'laws' and 'rituals' are not 'bad' in and of themselves (even if they allow/justify violations of human rights in any way). The persons that put them in place in the society may have made an error, and not taken into account all the factors which should have been considered when emplacing the tool for enforcement of behavior... but the actual tool itself would not be at fault. Rather the fault would be somewhere in the society itself... a person, a special interest group, or something similar... which had authority and failed to take into account all the necessary factors before moving the rock everyone is standing on, metaphorically speaking.
So, here we have arrived at a deeper meaning of one of any society's inherent responsibilities, to produce individuals with all the necessary qualifications to sustain the society itself, in fact and not just in appearance. Such qualifications very likely include the ability to 'see the big picture' and not to be fixated on personal or political gain within the society. Laws and rituals could, and often do, perform this function within a society. Their effectiveness can be measured by the overall success/failure of the society(s).
imho... rituals tend to produce individuals with more imagination and vision and compassion, and perhaps that is a cause for a great many people to perceive a difference between 'laws' and 'rituals'... however that may be, laws and rituals perform essentially the same functions.
oops... sorry I got rather interested in that idea... please excuse my rambling and i hope you understand my position more completely.