>It seems you agree with your good friends the Jesuits who famously claimed they could mould a child if given him/her until the age of 7!

One learns something new every day! They really had friends?

>Seriously, though, in these "slightly" more permissive days during the decline and fall of the Western Hegemony, it may not be possible to bring enough pressure- I mean nurturing- to bear on the children on the "worst" part of the bell curve. Rather than blaming parents or caregivers, perhaps we need to look to ourselves as societies.

Quite inclined to agree here, were it not for my fear that the dychotomistic (and oh so Christian) view would simply swing the pendulum along the exactly same line, changing just the direction. There's more than just good/bad, good/evil, permissive/restrictive... and even black/white. Even shades of gray are not good enough sometimes, there's a whole spectrum out there. And non-coloristic solutions as well.

>>>So he needed a powerful church under his thumb... thus, the power of church was such that he couldn't or wouldn't just dismantle it or curb it...
>
>If you are saying that it was the *concept* of church in the minds of the King and society that exerted influence, I agree. Any power allocated to the church came directly from its procreators, who presumably need to be blamed for subsequent bad behavior just as you choose to blame parents/others for subsequent bad behavior of a human child. ;-)

The power of the concept in society's/people's mind, and the political power of the church as an organization. Did he invent the new church out of the blue, promoting true shepherds into shepherds and demoting shepherds into true shepherds? Or did he just manage to get away with what he did by leaving the organization pretty much as it was, leaving the important guys in their places, and promising them they won't have to be second in Rome but will have the privilege of being the first in their village.

So if the power of the church came from its procreators, are you also assuming that whoever has the ability to give has an equal ability to take away? I don't remember anyone expressing such a thought even as a joke. Though, I'm not that old, I only look so because of monitor tan.

>>>And why would unbelievers have to get organized at all? Are they threatened by something, or do they have an agenda?
>
>Why did the USA get organized? Why does any group get organized? It is to meet a goal. If you say that being agnostic/atheist does not incline one towards community or shared goals, I accept that.

As an unbeliever, I don't have any particular goal, nor a reason to seek the company of the likes of me. What for, to circle our wagons? To spread the No Particular Word? Maybe the separation of church and state would be a worthwhile goal... but, wait, isn't that already in the books? Still, it would be a good idea.

I don't mind the community, but when I'm in it, I really don't care who's a believer or who's not. I actually never ask - it's everyone's private matter. I start objecting, however, when it becomes a public matter, and someone somewhere in the dispute says something like "those unbelieving people have no [soul | spirituality | morality |...] ADDITIVE". Then the spirit of community just takes me in, to partake in the merry dispute.

As for shared goals, sure, I'm in, as long as they are shared. For exceptions, see previous paragraph.