Yep. Wanking, all right.

I have to agree with Occams, here. This is continental philosophy at its silliest.

WTF? Seriously? How does one follow from the other?

May as well say that “masturbation” has its origin in the opposable thumb, and therefore it has a “symbolic way” of distinguishing us from our chimpanzee cousins. (Yes, I know chimpanzees have opposable thumbs.)

This isn’t philosophy, it’s a kind of gematria. It’s essentially a kind of word association game, but instead of thinking that the association reveals something about the philosopher’s subconscious, he thinks it somehow necessarily true about the real world.

Which reveals that money as atonement is not “blasphemous”, as you later declare. The whole point of the sacrifice as a means of atonement is that the penitent must lose something of value—presumably of value comparable to the transgression. Whether that means sacrificing a goat (and subsequently buying a replacement goat) or sacrificing the monetary value of a goat is irrelevant.

I’ll buy that. (Pun not actually intended, but certainly welcome.)

The amount of money one has is directly related to the degree to which one can free oneself from the hardships of primitive life—easy access to food, shelter, clean water, art, beauty, and so on. People who have that no longer need (or want) religion. That’s why religious belief has declined so rapidly in most wealthy western democracies.

So, yes—money endangers religion. But don’t say it like it’s a bad thing.

I’m afraid you’ve got that backwards. Being motivated by real-world values is certainly a higher motive than superstitious dread.