|
Blurred posted:Hmmm yeah, but that's not really the issue here. The beliefs of individual people, you are right, are largely irrelevant. If someone chooses to believe in the existence of this or that God, or believe that this or that text was divinely inspired, or believe that this or that holyman is a manifestation of God's power, then that is a matter of little consequence. If all you have is a list of someone's theological or metaphysical beliefs, that's not likely to tell you very much about that person's political beliefs or their ethics more generally. Assholes are equally well represented in all religious (and non-religious) traditions. I agree with you in the long term on a global scale, but the US has such high religiosity that they need to be folded in or else we would be rolling back progress like crazy. I feel like any religious bent obscures reality, even if it's something like liberation theology that seems so all around positive. This means people's understanding of what the universe is and what people are is wrong on a foundational level, having a chain effect on perception and decision making. If humans are to make progress towards word peace, then having the vast majority of people be non-religious almost seems like a prerequisite. Religions promoting peace and tolerance for all people in preaching and in practice are historical exceptions, not the norm. We should try to phase out religion from the left, but that's a battle for after we have basic equal rights for minorities and LGBTQ (In the U.S. at least). Spuckuk posted:We aren't all American here, friendo. Hell, most of tye right in my country aren't religious either. True, but the op specifically said he was American so I chose examples he would be familiar with.
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 21:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 15:27 |
|
|
The Marxist Left, being a creation of and largely a movement of the West, is hostile to Western religion [read: Christianity and Judaism]. This Left is also obsessed with (Western) colonialism as Original Sin and pulls its punches to the point of refusing to criticize or even objectively scrutinize anything categorized as Not Of The West (Other), in a sort of inverted Orientalism. The result is strident criticism of Christianity, which has largely been neutered as a political and cultural influence in the West. Contrast this with a refusal to criticize religions of the Other, which have not been similarly castrated in civic life, and play a far greater role in retarding progress in their respective societies. It's a creepy form of fetishization, and dehumanizing of those deemed to be Other.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 21:40
|
|
|
I mean ultimately, leftism tends to be concerned with material issues, whereas religion tends to be concerned with moral or spiritual ones. Which means there's a degree of conflict that's sort of inevitable when religion leads people to put secondary importance on the material in favour of the moral or spiritual. To the extent that religion informs people's position on the material it can be concordant with the poltiical left, but to the degree both that it encourages people to dismiss the material and that it promotes a material position contrary to the left, it's going to be in conflict. It is certainly easier for religion to be in conflict with the left than in concert with it, but it is not an inherent issue with it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
Aren't material issues ultimately moral ones? I mean, I can define "Caring about water access for Native tribes" as a material issue, but is the ultimate drive not a moral one? Is there any situation where a moral issue doesn't have some material consequence?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 23:17
|
|
|
Axelgear posted:Aren't material issues ultimately moral ones? I mean, I can define "Caring about water access for Native tribes" as a material issue, but is the ultimate drive not a moral one? Is there any situation where a moral issue doesn't have some material consequence? I suppose I am arguing consequentialism vs rule-based ethics. Religion trends towards rule-based and the rules tend to be what they are because they've always been that. While, say, Marx would probably be a rather strong consequentialist.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 23:19
|
|
|
That is a better description, yes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 23:20
|
|
|
Is being hostile of religion's hostilities hostile of religion?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 23:24
|
|
|
Individual rights and freedoms are very much one of the core tenants of being a liberal, on the "Left". Religions tend to like to poo poo a lot on individual rights and freedoms, see particularly LGBTQ and how many religions treat have treated women. Seeing as Religions are directly opposed to many of the core tenants of the political left, the left should be hostile to religion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 01:16
|
|
|
i am harry posted:Is being hostile of religion's hostilities hostile of religion? If i've learned anything this past year+ a racist being called a racist is the worst racism ever, and you can twist that to imply that yes you're god drat hostile to religion and you should feel bad (don't) There's lots of good religious dudes out there that are cognizant of not having to take the bad parts of religion with the good parts, but they are drowned out at large by vocal aspects which are largely negative
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 01:21
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:Individual rights and freedoms are very much one of the core tenants of being a liberal, on the "Left". How is this any different from following civic law? True, we have Anarchists on the Left but by and large I think most people agree a State is necessary to some extent. So, say, the law says no murdering people. That's a restriction on your freedom to murder people which of course is a rule or law in many religions too. Any organization in power restricts rights and freedoms is my point. There's absolutely nothing unique about religion in this regard.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 01:34
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:Individual rights and freedoms are very much one of the core tenants of being a liberal, on the "Left". Individual rights and freedoms are a major source of the difference between liberalism and the left.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 01:42
|
|
|
I think a generalised hostility to religion on the left is a really bad thing to have. Churches, mosques and temples are excellent organising spaces, form the centrepieces of a lot of communities and often work on charitable outreach to the poor and needy in their vicinity. What leftists should be doing is getting involved in religious organisations and turning them towards socially redeeming and progressive causes. A church need only be as reactionary as its congregation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 01:47
|
|
|
My biggest problem with religion right now is that reading thousands of years old religious texts and trying to apply them to modern day issues is stupid. As far as offering community and things like that I think religion can be good, but maybe there are better ways societies can offer community than religion also.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 01:47
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:How is this any different from following civic law? True, we have Anarchists on the Left but by and large I think most people agree a State is necessary to some extent. Many freedoms should be restricted, ie, we don't have the freedom to murder people. This restriction applies to all people, independent of sexual orientation or gender. Religion likes to gently caress over particular subsets of society in particular. See again, LGBTQ people and how there are many restrictions and laws against these people specifically. If no one could marry that would be fine. If everyone could marry that would also be fine. But its because of religion that there is so much resistance to a particular subset of society from marrying. There are many very much more serious consequences for LGBTQ people in other places of the world and for women also. If religions treated people equally there wouldn't be an issue, but it doesn't, it likes to gently caress over specific subsets of society, just for funsies. This must not be tolerated. People deserve to be treated equally and religions need to respect this. BattleMoose fucked around with this message at 02:01 on Mar 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 01:57
|
|
|
I mean the religious apologist would probably argue that everyone is equally obligated not to do gay stuff. I don't really think that is well characterized as an equality issue. People deserve to be happy, and may have unequal requirements to facilitate that. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 02:12 on Mar 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 02:09
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I mean the religious apologist would probably argue that everyone is equally obligated not to do gay stuff. Not being able to marry your partner and seek the legal protections and social recognition that comes with that is absolutely an equality issue. As in, some groups get to do this and other groups cannot. These groups are not equal. This has nothing to do with "unequal requirements", the requirements are the same.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 02:24
|
|
|
Which again highlights the conflict between consequential and rule based ethics. One could believe that people are either equally obligated to follow the rules or equally entitled to a particular outcome. Different rules produce the same outcome, the same rules produce different outcomes. Framing it as just an "equality" issue without addressing that conflict is rather reductionist.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 02:27
|
|
|
In my experience religion is used as a blunt hammer to justify policy that has no factual basis for existing. So as a statist I am rather inclined to discount it's value in policy making. The thread premise is rather like asking, "Would a farmer from Kansas be a useful source for expertise on Salmon management?" Despite many trying to insist to the contrary, politics is of the world of men, and trying to imply otherwise is an attempt to "Argumentum Verecundia"
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 03:23
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:One could believe that people are either equally obligated to follow the rules or equally entitled to a particular outcome. Or we could have rules that don't deliberately exclude people. Allowing adults independent of gender to marry, is the same rule for all, with same outcome for all. Bam, equality. Basically when we have rules that apply differently dependent on gender, sexual orientation or race, just don't do that. I don't even know why you are going down this side track.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 03:28
|
|
|
Religion is a poison in the sense that it tends to reward illogical thought, and any kind of logical conclusion tends to reward communist thought, so it's no accident that there is a tension between religion and "the left" insofar as it actually is "the left" and not what America considers "the left," which is actually a right-center position. Insofar as they're based on actual argumentation, so-called religious positions aren't, and insofar as they're based on mystic garbage, they aren't intelligible to anyone who doesn't already subscribe to the same crystal ball readings and astrological horseshit. The only proper response to anyone espousing any kind of religious dogma in the public sphere is derision, just as the only proper response to anyone espousing any kind of capitalist dogma in the public sphere is to recognize the deadly self-interest inherent in it and react with force in kind. It should be no surprise to anyone that capitalists, like religionists, are adept at fooling themselves because Western religions are set up to be abused by the wealthy. If you need religion to come to a leftist conclusion, you aren't a very good leftist.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 03:34
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:The Marxist Left, being a creation of and largely a movement of the West, is hostile to Western religion [read: Christianity and Judaism]. This Left is also obsessed with (Western) colonialism as Original Sin and pulls its punches to the point of refusing to criticize or even objectively scrutinize anything categorized as Not Of The West (Other), in a sort of inverted Orientalism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 03:40
|
|
|
We harmed Islamic nations, therefore we have to defend Islam - a group of people so unfamiliar with logical thought that they should be slapped if they called themselves leftists, let alone Marxists
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 03:42
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:Or we could have rules that don't deliberately exclude people. Because the topic of the thread is conflict between religion and leftist politics, which merits an analysis of the different motivations and goals of each? "Hey why don't you just change all of your rules because my consequentialist ethics say you should and we won't have a problem what's so bad about that?" is completely ignoring the point of religious rules.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 03:47
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I mean ultimately, leftism tends to be concerned with material issues, whereas religion tends to be concerned with moral or spiritual ones. How is 'moral' distinct from material? And why are you equating it with spiritual?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 03:50
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:the point of religious rules. Which is what, anyways?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 03:53
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:Which is what, anyways?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 03:57
|
|
|
Well broadly most of the religions you're likely to have much to do with work on the principle that there's a God and that God wants you to do things a certain way. And that doing things that way will bring you spiritual benefits which far outweigh your material concerns in your day to day life. I assume you're familiar with that concept at least. So someone who believes that is going to look at the world through that lens. So if you tell them about the importance of equality, they'll probably be more concerned with people's equal ability to follow those divinely inspired rules and receive their spiritual reward. The concept of material equality of outcome is not the same as just the concept of "equality", it's quite specific and requires a quite specific worldview in order to derive from just the concept of "equality". Some religious traditions do adopt a more liberation focused materialist position but not all. However I would venture that that... interventionist tradition is probably still motivated by moral rules, not consequentialist ethics. Essentially it is quite possible to approach a practical leftist platform from either consequentialism or rule-based ethics, even religiously motivated ones. It depends really on the specific beliefs you hold. The primary religious opposition to leftism is far more found in the prosperity gospel types than anything else and that's not a problem with them being religious, it's a problem that adherents of that ideology are adopting a deliberately constructed religiously themed post-hoc justification for conservative politics. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 04:08 on Mar 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 03:58
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Well broadly most of the religions you're likely to have much to do with work on the principle that there's a God and that God wants you to do things a certain way. And that doing things that way will bring you spiritual benefits which far outweigh your material concerns in your day to day life. I assume you're familiar with that concept at least. So, an insane person then? How do I reason with such a person?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 04:03
|
|
|
How do I argue with someone who is chasing spiritual benefits, when that's all they care about and I'm not god, so I can't manifest any argument that's going to supersede those spiritual benefits? Do you want me to cover myself with chicken blood when I ask them to treat unbelievers as people?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 04:05
|
|
|
zh1 posted:How do I argue with someone who is chasing spiritual benefits, when that's all they care about and I'm not god, so I can't manifest any argument that's going to supersede those spiritual benefits? Do you want me to cover myself with chicken blood when I ask them to treat unbelievers as people? I don't know, how do you reason with someone who has no moral absolutes and is clearly one step away from murdering everyone around them if the fancy takes them because what would inhibit them?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 04:07
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I don't know, how do you reason with someone who has no moral absolutes and is clearly one step away from murdering everyone around them if the fancy takes them because what would inhibit them? I'm asking you how to argue with insane people
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 04:09
|
|
|
I'm a practicing Catholic and a leftist.The "left" is only hostile to religion because some "leftists" choose to adopt hostile attitudes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 04:10
|
|
|
Another of many thousands of case studies in how religious people and their defenders can't even follow along
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 04:10
|
|
|
Sinnlos posted:I'm a practicing Catholic and a leftist.The "left" is only hostile to religion because some "leftists" choose to adopt hostile attitudes. You are only one of the two of those!
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 04:11
|
|
|
zh1 posted:I'm asking you how to argue with insane people And I'm trying to suggest that perhaps utilizing a degree of non-consequentialist ethics isn't actually a form of completely alienating insanity.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 04:11
|
|
|
Well, YOU sure aren't a leftist!
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 04:12
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:And I'm trying to suggest that perhaps utilizing a degree of non-consequentialist ethics isn't actually a form of completely alienating insanity. How do I argue with someone when I don't share their view of the creator, if we're going to allow creator-inspired arguments into the fold? Easy question.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 04:13
|
|
|
See how easily the religious retreat into the old "well all people are really irrational at the end of the day" canard? This shouldn't be so easy
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 04:14
|
|
|
zh1 posted:How do I argue with someone when I don't share their view of the creator, if we're going to allow creator-inspired arguments into the fold? Easy question. The same way you argue with anybody who doesn't share 100% of your premises...
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 04:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 15:27 |
|
|
zh1 posted:See how easily the religious retreat into the old "well all people are really irrational at the end of the day" canard? This shouldn't be so easy We are all perfectly rational actors, which is why Libertarianism is a coherent and practicable ideology with zero flaws.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 04:17
|
|