|
Cingulate posted:I don't know if we've had this before, but maybe we could have a show of hands, who's actually leftist, who's religious, who's hostile to religion? Just so we can put things in perspective better. I'm a leftists and I'm not hostile towards religion though I'm happily an atheist. Protestantism is weird as gently caress but, hey man, you do you. When religious institutions try to impose their alien values on society as a whole, I get real upset about. When religion stays out of the lime light and is just a personal/cultural thing (which covers most Catholics, Jews, American Muslims, American Buddhists, etc.) then I'm fine with it.
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 17:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 11:17 |
|
|
"the left" is not inherently hostile to religion, but "the left" becomes hostile when it interferes with government and basic individual rights. it is not aimed at religion itself. everyone's free to believe what they want, but not at the expense of the rights of others. e: i guess you can call me leftist, although i abhor the term. i lack any sort of religious beliefs, dad's a muslim, mom's a christian. spaceships fucked around with this message at 17:29 on Mar 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
Cynical leftist. Early life spent in Pentecostal churches, switched to Free Will Baptist from ages 10-17ish. Agonizing agnostic for a few years. Currently existential atheist in practice, agnostic at the core since I can't prove my worldview. Religion fosters both useful and harmful outcomes, and I would like to see it replaced by a sort of humanistic understanding, coupled with a sense of localized communities and specializations. This isn't going to happen within my lifetime, but I'd like to see movement in that direction.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 17:47
|
|
|
Weighing in as Jewish psychologist/scientist here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 17:53
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Even the most brutal autocracy still rules over human beings, and human beings have a moral consciousness. Therefore, such oppression cannot occur without a bullshit 'excuse' for why the oppression is not only necessary, but itself righteous. Human beings have a moral consciousness? Now who's being naive.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 18:07
|
|
|
Religion is just an expression of a group of people's cultural values, sociodynamics, material statuses, etc. at varying demographic scales (neighborhood, city, country et al). It's not in any way divorced or separable from humanity and power structures of civilization. It's silly to talk about it as if it's some disease that can be cured if you just yell at it hard enough, or a monolithic enemy where no allies can be found. Is the left hostile to religion or vice versa? Only insofar as much as any given religion at any time adheres to, propagates, reinforces and disseminates capitalist ideals, whether consciously or subconsciously. Patriarchy is bad. Capitalism is bad. Authoritarianism is bad. Tribalism is bad. Religion does not need to possess all or even any of these constructs to exist and be an expression of culture. How's the historical track record? Eh, not good. But in my opinion you fix that from the ground up, seeing to people's material needs, liberating them oppressive governments (whether religious in nature or not) and exploitative labor conditions rather than railing at the form their religion is currently taking to deal with all the previously mentioned issues. A lot of people misinterpret Marx's famous quote about religion being the "opium of the masses", in reading it today in the 21st century they fail to grasp that opium was a basic pain reliever and generally useful/valuable substance in his time, not the vector of an epidemic and stigmatized like heroin is today. He was basically saying "poo poo is hosed and religion helps people cope with their exploited lives", which I generally agree with. Like anything else, capitalism can use anything as a tool to further its own existence and does, that's where it gets tricky though.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 18:50
|
|
|
Left of the average social democrat with libertarian views on some social issues. I think deriving your moral compass from religious dogma is inherently flawed and secular humanism provides the best methods to discover and encourage ethical and productive interactions in society.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:I see a lot of questions here as well as some irrelevant assertions. I am not trying to say that religion can replace science nor that science is basically a religion. I am saying neither of those things, I don't see how religion could at all be used as science would. I also don't see how you would use science the same way you use religion, as a way of giving meaning to your own life, for example. Cingulate posted:I'd say I'm probably a liberal - the boring, technocratic Obama kind - but with sympathies for more socialist perspectives on economic matters and somewhat more libertarian ideals on social issues. I'm also somehow fairly hostile to the left, don't ask me how that works out. I guess I'm a slightly religious catholic communist.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 19:11
|
|
|
Anyone who thinks of roman catholicism the institution as this quirky cultural thing has no idea what the actual institutional power of it has been and in a lot of places still is, and will likely not understand why revolutionaries in ostensibly catholic countries, often organisations containing catholics themselves (nominal or otherwise) have a strong tendency to string up priests and burn churches the moment a revolution happens, no matter the continent. It's not just simple sadism, there's a strong history and tendency of reactionary support when helping goes beyond charitable survival and towards questioning the established order. Or they buy too much into the nonsense about Francis I being some sort of liberal luminary rather than being merely polite about the sheer amount of influence he wields as the head of the church and immensely better at PR than his predecessors. Agnosticnixie fucked around with this message at 19:53 on Mar 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 19:49
|
|
|
magnavox space odyssey posted:I am not trying to say that religion can replace science nor that science is basically a religion. I am saying neither of those things, I don't see how religion could at all be used as science would. I also don't see how you would use science the same way you use religion, as a way of giving meaning to your own life, for example. The scientific method can't do things it's not designed to do but that doesn't make religion a good or the preferable way to do those things. Through a process of reasoned arguments and looking at the evidence we have determined that slavery is wrong and women should not be subservient to men. Taking the bible literally you wouldn't come to that conclusion - you have to interpret it and look at it in context to get there. You are using your mind and making a value judgement. Why not simply skip religion and base your moral code directly on reason and evidence instead? Religion only adds a layer of complexity that you in best case can bend to conform to what you already know to be true or in worst case let's you justify what you can't defend with reason.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
zh1 posted:Question for the religion-defenders. I feel like we can agree that you're defending religion as a regrettable but sometimes incidentally helpful ally to leftism, as a necessary evil that isn't going anywhere and appears to motivate certain people to fight for worthy causes. I would disagree in that I would defend it as entirely irrelevant to the question of leftism except in the instances where it forms part of an obstructive power structure, in which case it is not distinct from any other obstructive power structure and the problem is not the particular flavour of the structure involved. The problem with plutocracy is not that it is secular, the problem with theocracy is not that it is religious, the problem with both is when they lead to unproductive outcomes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I would disagree in that I would defend it as entirely irrelevant to the question of leftism except in the instances where it forms part of an obstructive power structure
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
zh1 posted:Using your religious ideology to impact anyone's life is an obstructive power structure That depends entirely on your religious ideology, if your religious ideology emphasises charity and self sacrifice for the wellbeing of your fellows like, y'know, the bible has some pretty ace verses on, I'd say you're probably on a pretty good track.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:That depends entirely on your religious ideology, if your religious ideology emphasises charity and self sacrifice for the wellbeing of your fellows like, y'know, the bible has some pretty ace verses on, I'd say you're probably on a pretty good track. Not really, charity is a band-aid that ameliorates but doesn't actually solve the problems caused by capitalism. It's actually a perfect example of what's wrong with religious motivations, they play directly into the power structure without even realizing it because actual critical thought doesn't enter into it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 20:40
|
|
|
Ah yes, charity is evil, caring about the immediate plight of your peers is bad because it gets in the way of the glorious revolutionary vanguard leading us all into socialism. I am filled with optimism about the wonderful future we would all live in if that idea got traction.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Ah yes, charity is evil, caring about the immediate plight of your peers is bad because it gets in the way of the glorious revolutionary vanguard leading us all into socialism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 20:48
|
|
|
Yes I, the person who thinks that homeless shelters maybe shouldn't be first against the wall, and who thinks that there's something a bit suspect about someone willing to actually say "no charity is bad and people who do it are our enemies because they're counterrevolutionary" I'm the person who has bad politics.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 20:51
|
|
|
zh1 posted:Using your religious ideology to impact anyone's life is an obstructive power structure Drop the R-word and this is still true. Maybe this idea of living in communities was a mistake and is a problem, and we should deny the very idea of structure. st_anthonythegreat.txt
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 20:51
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Yes I, the person who thinks that homeless shelters maybe shouldn't be first against the wall, and who thinks that there's something a bit suspect about someone willing to actually say "no charity is bad and people who do it are our enemies because they're counterrevolutionary" I'm the person who has bad politics.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 20:53
|
|
|
I think if you've reached the point where you're actually blaming charity for the failure of the revolution because you either want an excuse in general, or you want an excuse specifically to blame religious people for it, you've kind of hosed your leftist cred unless you're intending to sound like some kind of tankie.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 20:55
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I think if you've reached the point where you're actually blaming charity for the failure of the revolution because you either want an excuse or you want an excuse to blame religious people for it, you've kind of hosed your leftist cred unless you're intending to sound like some kind of tankie.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
Feel free to make it deader.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 20:58
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I think if you've reached the point where you're actually blaming charity for the failure of the revolution because you either want an excuse in general, or you want an excuse specifically to blame religious people for it, you've kind of hosed your leftist cred unless you're intending to sound like some kind of tankie. Nobody is blaming charity. I've been a recipient of it on multiple occasions. But all charity does, ultimately, is provide two things: a band-aid for the poor who need structural changes to society, and a way for the mighty to have good conscience that doesn't deter from their position of power. There's also nothing tankie about acknowledging this issue with charity unless you're a liberal who thinks tankie means "anyone to the left of Mitterand and Blair is a tankie"
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 20:58
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:It's purpose for existence is to argue that there is such a thing as absolute knowledge, be it about the nature of the universe, right and wrong, whatever. That knowledge can be anything. Arguing that a belief in absolute truth must inherently favor capitalism is loving retarded. If a religion or community does that it's a problem that you should treat exactly the same way as you would a country, or organization that does that. You change it. Or I guess kill everyone in it if you like your leftism particularly authoritarian but I am going to assume, charitably, that you don't.  If of claims to be nonreligious and on the left, then he's either a troll or unwilling to engage in reasoned and polite debate. done with him. Agnosticnixie posted:Nobody is blaming charity. I've been a recipient of it on multiple occasions. But all charity does, ultimately, is provide two things: a band-aid for the poor who need structural changes to society, and a way for the mighty to have good conscience that doesn't deter from their position of power.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
Agnosticnixie posted:Nobody is blaming charity. I've been a recipient of it on multiple occasions. But all charity does, ultimately, is provide two things: a band-aid for the poor who need structural changes to society, and a way for the mighty to have good conscience that doesn't deter from their position of power. There's something pretty loving wrong with someone who, when faced with a capitalist and a charitable person, complains that the charitable person is just enabling the capitalist. I think that person has some pretty hosed priorities and a severe paucity of empathy. I wouldn't trust them to look after a dog much less society.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 21:01
|
|
|
I'm lost. I don't understand the argument anymore. Owlfancier, zh1, do you maybe think you can represent the position of the other party in a manner they would agree to?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 21:03
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:I disagree with your premise that religion is a necessary evil. Religion is extraordinarily good.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 21:04
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:make a note that he literally claimed someone was saying that charities ought to be firebombed (basically accusing them of being a terrorist, or to "just admit you are a terrorist"), before he said what you quoted. OwlFancier posted:There's something pretty loving wrong with someone who, when faced with a capitalist and a charitable person, complains that the charitable person is just enabling the capitalist. You seem to think that these are inherently diametrally opposed and natural enemies. This is more often than not not true. Sorry if the thought that some people might not be entirely groveling in gratitude at the willingness of the powerful to part with largely unearned pocket change. I'm sure not all donors are like that but the bulk of what provides ngo and charity budgets is. quote:I think that person has some pretty hosed priorities and a severe paucity of empathy. I wouldn't trust them to look after a dog much less society.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 21:04
|
|
|
Agnosticnixie posted:You seem to think that these are inherently diametrally opposed and natural enemies. This is more often than not not true. Sorry if the thought that some people might not be entirely groveling in gratitude at the willingness of the powerful to part with largely unearned pocket change. How the gently caress are there possibly more charitable bourgies than normal people? Are you seriously trying to claim that charity is predominantly comprised of the absurdly wealthy? Have you ever had anything to do with charity in your life? Because I can drat well assure you that most of the people involved with it are not loving rich.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:How the gently caress are there possibly more charitable bourgies than normal people? Are you seriously trying to claim that charity is predominantly comprised of the absurdly wealthy? Have you ever had anything to do with charity in your life? Because I can drat well assure you that most of the people involved with it are not loving rich. You're way overmatched, dude
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:There's something pretty loving wrong with someone who, when faced with a capitalist and a charitable person, complains that the charitable person is just enabling the capitalist. NOBODY IS MAKING THE ARGUMENT THAT CHARITABLE PEOPLE ARE BAD.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 21:09
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:NOBODY IS MAKING THE ARGUMENT THAT CHARITABLE PEOPLE ARE BAD. OwlFancier posted:That depends entirely on your religious ideology, if your religious ideology emphasises charity and self sacrifice for the wellbeing of your fellows like, y'know, the bible has some pretty ace verses on, I'd say you're probably on a pretty good track. zh1 posted:Not really, charity is a band-aid that ameliorates but doesn't actually solve the problems caused by capitalism. It's actually a perfect example of what's wrong with religious motivations, they play directly into the power structure without even realizing it because actual critical thought doesn't enter into it. "Charity motivated by religion is good" "No it isn't"
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 21:10
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:How the gently caress are there possibly more charitable bourgies than normal people? Are you seriously trying to claim that charity is predominantly comprised of the absurdly wealthy? Have you ever had anything to do with charity in your life? Because I can drat well assure you that most of the people involved with it are not loving rich. The question is not whether they're more numerous, it's whose pockets are deeper. The amount of money I've given to charity when I had little was significant. It's still dwarfed by what has been, for rich customers, meager contributions. That's not even going into how ngos are run, by and large. Also nothing zh1 says in that line is wrong; charity is a band-aid, charity does not question or change power structures.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 21:11
|
|
|
Loving Life Partner posted:Religion is just an expression of a group of people's cultural values, sociodynamics, material statuses, etc. at varying demographic scales (neighborhood, city, country et al). It's not in any way divorced or separable from humanity and power structures of civilization. It's silly to talk about it as if it's some disease that can be cured if you just yell at it hard enough, or a monolithic enemy where no allies can be found. Is the left hostile to religion or vice versa? Only insofar as much as any given religion at any time adheres to, propagates, reinforces and disseminates capitalist ideals, whether consciously or subconsciously. Did religion come about as a way to make sure that a certain set of cultural values etc stay set in stone, and that it looks at any insiders or outsiders who do not directly adhere to those views as potential threats? Or did it come about because everybody was already so in-agreement that they were just like hey, we're just expressing ourselves here - if you express yourself differently hey, well, we will feel attacked and so attack you instead. If you feel that you can fix it you're basically on the side of rudatron's argument, then. That religions as they currently stand, more often than not are actually going to possibly cause problems while giving religious believers easy ways to ignore basic truths about how society works - in lieu of magically reminiscent thinking Also, opiates are not healthy unless they are used specifically to treat a specific ailment. Otherwise they become an addiction which can ruin lives and cause terrible crime, and deaths. The key thing with opiates is that you are supposed as a tool to address an issue - not as a daily regimen which ought to be shared with others. At that point it is unhealthy and has become a dis-eased set of behaviors. magnavox space odyssey posted:I am not trying to say that religion can replace science nor that science is basically a religion. I am saying neither of those things, I don't see how religion could at all be used as science would. I also don't see how you would use science the same way you use religion, as a way of giving meaning to your own life, for example. And I like god of the gaps as a possibility in physics, it comforts me that there's still things which can learn learn, things which can be harnessed and changed for the better. I guess that is inherently philosophical. coyo7e fucked around with this message at 21:18 on Mar 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
Agnosticnixie posted:The question is not whether they're more numerous, it's whose pockets are deeper. No it loving isn't... The question was about people, if you're trying to assert that charity is meaningless because the majority of people who give to it are super rich that's completely asinine. Charity is primarily a collective work done by vast groups of non-empowered people working in concert. You might as well argue that a billionaire is the most significant contributor to an enterprise rather than the people who work for the fucker.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 21:15
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:No it loving isn't... The question was about people, if you're trying to assert that charity is meaningless because the majority of people who give to it are super rich that's completely asinine. Charity is primarily a collective work done by vast groups of non-empowered people working in concert. You might as well argue that a billionaire is the most significant contributor to an enterprise rather than the people who work for the fucker. I didn't say anything about the bulk of the people, you read it that way. The bulk of charity is funded by the capitalist class. That doesn't mean they're the bulk of the donors, that means they're the bulk of the donations. Ultimately big NGOs are mostly impossible to untangle from general capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 21:17
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:"Charity motivated by religion is good" I said it ameliorates problems. What in your tiny brain has trouble with that?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 21:18
|
|
|
If all it takes to get into heaven is to ignore the unfortunate in hopes that the wealthiest individuals will swoop in and help them, that's really unfortunate. And I I know that lots of christian churchgoers donate 10% or more to their church so it's supposedly not only the wealthiest who're being asked to carry the load - but when they can't afford to donate do you know what happens? They quietly stop showing up in shame (or everybody passes a hat and then condescendingly gives them a handout which won't actually address the root reason the person can't afford to tithe). Meanwhile the people who could afford to toss an extra twenty at their neighbor, and the guy who used his charitable donations to the local food bank or shelter as a tax write-off, are held up as pillars. Doesn't really seem like much of a moral framework to live by if you want to be a good person. coyo7e fucked around with this message at 21:32 on Mar 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 21:29
|
|
|
If all it takes to be a leftist is to ignore the unfortunate in hopes that the revolution will happen and help them, that's loving laughable. If you don't believe that charity and social reform are different forms of the same impulse and both unequivocally good, you're a loving moron.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 21:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 11:17 |
|
|
The solution is to eliminate the perceived need for the wealthiest to swoop in to begin with. But that requires change rather than pocket change. I'm sure you'll feel better merely ascribing a lack of empathy instead, since clearly the non-religious left must just love capitalism and the system, and must never do anything charitable. Understanding that charity only alleviates a symptom isn't the same as leaving people to starve, no matter how much of a hard-on you have for cheap 2$ apologetics.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 21:32
|
|