|Robert Naiman wrote:
> Finally, I agree with those who said that Neoclassical Economics should come before Christianity in the religion-bash list. My list was in error. Neoclassical Economics is far more destructive, and in the United States, far more dogmatic and inflexible.
This is a blinkered academic view. Neoclassical economics is of interest
only to a narrow elite -- it provides a rationale for ideologies and activities
that are indeed pernicious, but that could probably survive having quite
different high-level theories for their rationalization.
Christianity however is widely corrupting across all sectors of the population
and any blunting of its force would translate almost immediately into
increased political possibility.
I can attack any given economic theory (sophisticated or vulgar) that
any of the people I know hold without offending them. In fact the
idiocy of academic economics is sometimes a help to agitational work.
(It provides a neat point of departure.) But Christianity is an almost
endless headache in that one has to wrap politics in all sorts of
complex wordings in order to tiptoe around religious superstition.