Topic: CAN the same be said of all religions?

[Super Waffle]

Or do you think Dracula was just trolling when he said that?

[Gunlord]

Just trolling. I mean, really, he was facing down Richter, he would want to erode his enemy's faith (therefore making him easier to defeat) before fighting him, right?

[Mooning Freddy]

Nothing but the truth, my friend.

[jestercolony]

Now, I might be treading on a very touchy subject and if so - I welcome any admins/mods to remove my post; I wish not to offend any reader who might read this, so I have placed a spoiler tag as a warning.

"Tribute?! You steal men's souls and make them your slaves!" - Richter Belmont
-
"Perhaps the same could be said of all religions." - Dracula

(click to show/hide)

The whole point and part of this conversation as one of the above replies stated that this comment was to weaken Richter's faith in God. But the real concept lays within the words themselves. Religion has been around for more than thousands of years and people who are spiritual, especially Christian will worship their Priest/Pastors...etc. like gods, because to them they are the "voice" of God.  And people will follow them, even to their deaths. It has been like this for centuries.

Religion itself is a very touchy subject and should be treated very carefully on these forums out of the respect of others.

[Mooning Freddy]

I know that Superwaffle makes those threads as jokes, but being the philosophy enthusiast that I am, I cannot resist the urge to analyze this. 

Follow me here:

Richter: You steal men's souls and make them your slaves!
Dracula: The same could be said about all religions.

Therefore Dracula's argument is: all religions steal men's souls and make them their slaves, thus he is not worse than them.

First we must analyze what "stealing a man's soul" is. We know that many religions, especially Judeo-Christian ones, demand that people place their trust and loyalty in the religion and its laws, as they believe were given to them by God. If the faith and loyalty of a man is his "soul" as Dracula implys, we may say by that logic that religion takes a man's "soul" but we do not know if that could be considered stealing. Another interpretation is that a man's "soul" is his freedom. Religion forces a man to behave according to a specific set of rules, therefore limiting his freedom, and of we consider that as an unjust limitation of freedom, it may be considered "stealing".

However, it is not only religion that limits man's freedom. Any government limits man's freedom, and a great part of history religion and government were the same. The rules of a religion used to be the rules of the state, and breaking them would be breaking the law. Separation of Church and state is a fairly new concept.

Therefore I reach a point where I must say that Dracula's argument should rather be The same could be said about all governments. 

The second part of the analysis is one where I continue and beg the question: Do all governments steal men's souls and make them their slaves?

You could say yes, but that would be quite a controversial answer. St. Augustine said that citizens are slaves of the ruler the same way all men are slaves of God, and that the need for government is a punishment from God for the original sin.
Robert Hobbes gave a more secular interpretation of government as one that is a human choice, one that is painful but necessary. People need to live in fear of the government because otherwise there would be anarchy where they would fear each other, which is worse.

So we have the anarchist / libertarian argument that government is inherently evil, and the classic argument that government is necessary. I could combine the arguments to conclude that government is a necessary evil.   

However! That does not mean it is necessary for a government to be evil. In fact, it is better that it would be as less evil as possible. So this is the equation I get:

1. Dracula is evil
2. Government is evil
3. Dracula wants to be the government / religion.
4. Government and religion should be as less evil as possible.
=============================================

Conclusion: Dracula's argument fails. He should not be allowed to become government.

[Chernabogue]

Spoiler: Dracula is Marx.

[Intersection]

I know that Superwaffle makes those threads as jokes, but being the philosophy enthusiast that I am, I cannot resist the urge to analyze this. 

Yes, that's the spirit! 

Now, your reasoning in itself is quite interesting; but it's also, well, rather strange.

So here are a few pointers:

Therefore Dracula's argument is: all religions steal men's souls and make them their slaves, thus he is not worse than them.

This I agree with. Though, if you hadn't noticed, Dracula insinuates something else: in whose name, after all, is Richter coming to fight him? In the name of mankind, yes; but also in the name of God, in the name of religion. Essentially, that offhand remark is Dracula's own, cynic way of brushing aside Richter's accusations -- why must he answer to those who, in in the end, are no better than him? And, like jestercolony so aptly described it, it's also there to weaken Richter's own convictions.

First we must analyze what "stealing a man's soul" is. We know that many religions, especially Judeo-Christian ones, demand that people place their trust and loyalty in the religion and its laws, as they believe were given to them by God. If the faith and loyalty of a man is his "soul" as Dracula implys, we may say by that logic that religion takes a man's "soul" but we do not know if that could be considered stealing. Another interpretation is that a man's "soul" is his freedom. Religion forces a man to behave according to a specific set of rules, therefore limiting his freedom, and of we consider that as an unjust limitation of freedom, it may be considered "stealing".

That's also reasonable.

However, it is not only religion that limits man's freedom. Any government limits man's freedom, and a great part of history religion and government were the same. The rules of a religion used to be the rules of the state, and breaking them would be breaking the law. Separation of Church and state is a fairly new concept.

Therefore I reach a point where I must say that Dracula's argument should rather be The same could be said about all governments.

Now here's where I don't understand your argument. From what I've read, this is essentially what you're telling us:
- Religion limits man's freedom.
- Government limits man's freedom.
- Therefore, Religion is Government.
And that, of course, makes no sense at all.

And as for separation of Church and State, that dates back to Aristotle. It isn't exactly a "fairly new concept".

The second part of the analysis is one where I continue and beg the question: Do all governments steal men's souls and make them their slaves?

You could say yes, but that would be quite a controversial answer. St. Augustine said that citizens are slaves of the ruler the same way all men are slaves of God, and that the need for government is a punishment from God for the original sin.
Robert Hobbes gave a more secular interpretation of government as one that is a human choice, one that is painful but necessary. People need to live in fear of the government because otherwise there would be anarchy where they would fear each other, which is worse.

So we have the anarchist / libertarian argument that government is inherently evil, and the classic argument that government is necessary. I could combine the arguments to conclude that government is a necessary evil.   

I'm sorry, but St. Augustine's and Hobbes' ideas are hardly representative of political philosophy as a whole. You've left out so much of it that I wouldn't dare to enumerate all of the authors you've missed... And what does St. Augustine have to do with anarchist or libertarian theories? And how is Hobbes' view a "classic argument"?

Oh, and I think you mean... Thomas Hobbes? 

However! That does not mean it is necessary for a government to be evil. In fact, it is better that it would be as less evil as possible. So this is the equation I get:

1. Dracula is evil
2. Government is evil
3. Dracula wants to be the government / religion.
4. Government and religion should be as less evil as possible.
=============================================

Conclusion: Dracula's argument fails. He should not be allowed to become government.

Here you've completely lost me.

For one: you've just concluded (very dubiously) that government is a necessary evil. But right after you add that it isn't necessary for a government to be evil? That makes no sense at all...

And your equation? I fail to see the logic in it.
I don't understand your second premise, and I don't know where you'd gotten your fourth. And the conclusion you draw from it is entirely unrelated.

So I'd be grateful if you'd explain your reasoning a bit further, since I can't seem to make much out if it at the moment...

[Gecko]

However! That does not mean it is necessary for a government to be evil. In fact, it is better that it would be as less evil as possible. So this is the equation I get:

1. Dracula is evil
2. Government is evil
3. Dracula wants to be the government / religion.
4. Government and religion should be as less evil as possible.
=============================================

Conclusion: Dracula's argument fails. He should not be allowed to become government.

Best post ever.

[Mooning Freddy]

Thomas Hobbes, yes. Haha, did I say Robert Hobbes? oops. 

I didn't say that government and religion are the same, only that in many ancient religions / government there was no separation of Church and state. In Judaism there was none, according to the Koran there should be none (Sharia should be the law of the state), ancient Christianity was not originally a political religion but it developed into one when the Romans embraced Christianity (City of God), also the ancient Greeks mixed religion with politics constantly (Socrates was executed after being blamed with disrespecting the gods). 

Obviously evil is not an absolute concept but a comparative one. If you say that someone is evil, you must compare him with others- more evil then... Less evil then...
Since Dracula is the absolute evil, you can't have say that he's the same "as all religions" because ultimately all religions are less evil than him. Therefore his argument fails.

My analysis is obviously more of a joke than a serious philosophical argument. 

[Intersection]

My analysis is obviously more of a joke than a serious philosophical argument. 

Of course it is. But if you don't already know, I love making serious arguments out of trifles... And, essentially, you can philosophize on just about anything. So I'll admit I had quite a bit of fun reading your post. 

Ah, and Socrates?

Now that's true philosophy for you.
But, of course, I'm sure you'd imagine there were many other... considerations at hand.

[Ratty]

Glad to see people are being pretty mellow in this thread. Here's hoping it stays this way.

As for the question itself, I feel crucial elements of the exchange are being left out. The entire exchange in the original English translation is:

Richter: Die monster, you don't belong in this world!
Dracula: It was not by my hand that I am once again given flesh. I was called here by humans who wish to pay me tribute.
Richter: Tribute!?! You steal men's souls, and make them your slaves!
Dracula: Perhaps the same could be said of all religions...
Richter: Your words are as empty as your soul, mankind ill needs a savior such as you!
Dracula: What is a man? A miserable little pile of secrets! But enough talk... have at you!

Now, it would be interesting to compare different translations, but the original is obviously the most influential so let's concentrate on it for the moment. While you can talk about the lack of separation of Church and state and Dracula's secular role as Count I think it's clear what's being made here is a strictly religious statement.

That's how Richter interprets it when he refers to Dracula as a would-be "Savior". Dracula is making a direct comparison between himself and Jesus Christ. Humans have recalled him from death to pay tribute, in exchange he takes them into his service and delivers their souls to their rightful reward. Dracula, a former servant of the Church during his participation in the Crusades, knows this full well.

It is a comparable arrangement, though it seems Dracula is making the observation mostly to unnerve Richter. You could say that his last dismissal of mankind as "miserable little piles of secrets" might be in reference to the true insight into the souls and essence of their followers a deity is said to possess. But at least in this translation it seems to me to be an unrelated proclamation spat out in disgust.

[X]

I personally think that Dracula wasn't just trying to spite Richter when he said those lines, but also to get him to think. After all a heretic (free thinker) is a very powerful enemy of the church. The church expects people to blindly follow them and Dracula can easily see this naivety in Richter. Dracula was a servant of the church once, but then felt betrayed by that very order when Lisa was executed. And since leaving the order he has allowed himself an entirely different view of the church's organization; one of contempt and corruption; A majestic tree rotting from the inside. I feel that Dracula knows far more about God and real faith then even the faithful do, and was trying to instill this in Richter in a rather enigmatic way. But since Dracula and the Belmont family are sworn enemies, getting Richter to 'think outside the box' was merely a secondary goal. I do believe in the end Richter probably did start to lose faith somewhat. It would explain why he was so easily corrupted by Shaft prior to SotN. A person's faith that is very strong (especially a Belmont) would not be so easily coerced. Soleyu was coerced very easily by Dracula but that was because Dracula is extremely powerful (second to none). I think Shaft was only able to succeed with Richter because Richter started to lose his faith sometime after RoB (probably from Dracula's words), and this allowed Shaft to corrupt his mind.

[Flame]

I think we SHOULD take note of the original japanese, not so much the translation, as shit tends to change a bit.

[Ratty]

I think we SHOULD take note of the original japanese, not so much the translation, as shit tends to change a bit.

You are quite right, and in the interests of scholarly comparison here are the two other English translations of the scene that I know of. The first is the official re-translation for the PSP release, which I've seen accused of being just as inaccurate as the original. The second is a fan translation which came out after the PSP translation's (purported) inaccuracy left some fans disappointed.

PSP Translation:

Richter: Dracula. Die now, and leave this world! You'll never belong here!
Dracula: Oh, but this world invited me. Your own kind called me forth with praise and tribute.
Richter: Tribute? You're a thief. You steal men's souls, their freedom...
Dracula: Freedom is always sacrificed to faith, good hunter. Or are you truly here by choice?
Richter: All I'm here for is you. To hell with your heresy! You're nothing but a blight on mankind.
Dracula: Ha! Mankind. A cesspit of hatred and lies. Fight for them, then, and die for their sins!

Fan Translation:

Richter Belmont: Begone! This world is not meant for the likes of you!
Dracula Vlad Tepes: My own powers did not bring about my resurrection. It was greed, the greed of you men which summoned me back. And is justice not defined by the mighty?
Richter Belmont: Such a selfish claim! Humanity is guided by our shared principles. We only want to come together, and move forward.
Dracula Vlad Tepes: Oh, but the truth is that humanity also bears burgeoning desires within them, which leads them to submit to their religious creeds, yes?
Richter Belmont: Mere power is not what leads mankind. Respect and generosity: these are what truly guide humanity!
Dracula Vlad Tepes: Preposterous. Which one of our claims is true? I shall give you the answer, along with death's embrace!

As you can see the PSP version doesn't change the meaning of the original English translation very much, while the fan translation is substantially different. With Dracula's barb against religion being much more subtle. I would love to see some of our Japanese speaking members weigh in on the accuracy or lack thereof of these various translations.
 

[darkwzrd4]

This is a very interesting thread. From my point of view, Dracula has a point. Based on the original English translation, Richter accuses Dracula of taking away the freedom of people and Dracula argues that religion does the same, which in a sense it does. By blindly following religious laws, people in essence give up their freedom of thought and let the rules of their religion control their lives. The difference is that religion gives people a sense of community and support. Most religions start out great and harmless, but as time goes on and the amount of followers increases, the individuals at the top with the most power tend to become corrupt. Just look at some of the cults like Heaven's Gate or the followers of Jim Jones who ended up committing mass suicide.

With power, there is always the can it can corrupt. This could be what Dracula was getting at possibly saying that Richter was blindly following his faith that was based on the teaching of possibly corrupt religious leaders.

In the PSP translation, Dracula seems to be saying that he was brought back by the darkness in humans and that despite what they say and do, at the core, all humans are evil, greed, depraved, corrupt creatures yet they brand him as evil and seek to destroy him when they really aren't that different than him.

This is just how i interpret this. Though my inability to wrap my head around how people can just believe things without any hard evidence and the fact that i'm a bit of cynic regarding organized religion may make my argument some what biased.