Is the Left Hostile to Religion?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Is the Left Hostile to Religion?

NikkolasKing: Apr 3, 2010

So, preface this by saying I'm an American who could probably use a lot more real life experience with people who identify as Leftists. As of right now I mainly read articles, post on here, watch YT videos and that kind of thing. As such that's where I'm directing this question and maybe it's not at all as common as I am thinking.

Is there some sort of antagonism between "Leftists" and religion? The Old Left or whatever was largely Marxist and Marx has that famous quote about religion that I think is kind of misquoted but the point is that religion is not viewed very favorably in that school of thought. In fact Atheism is encouraged. I watch many feminists who are justifiably hostile to religion and yet there is the whole Goddess Movement of the 60s and Wicca today and there were plenty of powerful women in religion throughout history. Not to deny the institutionalized sexism of religions like Christianity or Islam because that's undeniable but as with some other things, religions are becoming more inclusive and "liberal" with the flow of time.

Then there's the fact of the Religious Right here in the US. Perhaps my feeling that there is a lopsided misrepresentation of religious and politically active people on the Left is due to the fact the people you hear crying their religion the loudest tend to be Right Wing Evangelical nutjobs. But I was wondering if the atheism on the Left was also a response to this? All these super religious people have these awful views and you see them more than any other religious person it feels like so people tend to associate awful politics with religion.

I'm not religious in the sense I follow a religion. I simply think they are fascinating from a historical perspective and in terms of the modern day, they aren't going anywhere any time soon and so I don't think it's really wise to be hostile to them.

But maybe I have a fundamental misunderstanding and that's what I'm looking to find out from people here. Is there no divide between liberals and religion? Is it all in my mind or am I just wrong because I've spent too much time on this forum?

# ¿ Mar 6, 2017 10:27

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 1, 2024 16:48

NikkolasKing: Apr 3, 2010

BattleMoose posted:

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.

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

NikkolasKing: Apr 3, 2010

OwlFancier posted:

That was in reference to the assertion that Protestantism was a death cult..? I didn't say Catholicism was good. But classifying "Protestantism" as, well, anything coherent is a bit silly given that it incorporates wildly divergent political and theological perspectives. As, to be honest, does Catholicism to a surprising degree.

I once lamented to a Christian friend of mine who is quite the historian that Early Christianity was so interesting with all its divergent sects and not even a real canon. He countered by saying there are probably far, far more different denominations of Christians today with an even grater range of ideas and interpretations than there ever was in the first couple centuries after Jesus' death. I'm inclined to agree now I've read up a bit more.

# ¿ Mar 7, 2017 04:55

NikkolasKing: Apr 3, 2010

rudatron posted:

Secular politics is also a necessity. We are well past the age of political theology. We are in a modern age of political ideologies. As we should be, because the language of political ideology is a lot more intelligent & rational than the archaic ideas of divine leadership, being that ideology is founded on reason. Materialistic political ideologies are just better, because they're logical (they start from principles, and then logically derive policy - conflict between ideology is then conflict over those principles, not simply conflict over arbitrary group membership)

I agree overall with what you're saying but aren't you being perhaps a bit overly idealistic here? To use the slang "feels over reals" is the name of politics today. People don't want theories and explanations, they want someone who can tap into their hearts and minds and appeal to them on a primal level. A charismatic and competent orator is more powerful than anyone, intelligence or knowledge be damned. All the well-reasoned ideology in the world can't compete.

Authoritarianism and its attractiveness have not gone away in the modern era is my point.

# ¿ Mar 7, 2017 05:51

NikkolasKing: Apr 3, 2010

Dr. Fishopolis posted:

yeah, it's pretty objectively bad. if the only reason you help people is because of fear, you are a bad person.

Isn't that a rather sticky moral issue? Like, if you do nothing but help people all your life, how can you be a bad person?

# ¿ Mar 7, 2017 07:19

NikkolasKing: Apr 3, 2010

Sole.Sushi posted:

Honestly, this is a complex question that isn't easy to answer: forgive the train of thought below, I'll try to summarize at the end if you'd rather not read all of it.

There are people on the left who are hostile to religion, but as a whole, no. The left is fine with whatever faith (or lack thereof) you choose to follow, but what they generally have a problem with is when a faith interferes with basic human rights or contradicts equality.

Notable example: legal rights for homosexuals. Religion is the driving force of persecution behind the anti-gay sentiment that has pervaded the world for a long, long while. The left side of politics argue that religious basis for persecution interferes with basic human rights and does contradict equality for all, and so all over the world laws are being passed that assure them the same rights that heterosexuals have been enjoying this whole time (rights to be recognized as married, anti-discrimination laws, and so on). Now, there are those who still feel that being a homosexual is a sin, and while I cannot personally agree with that, it is their religion, it is their faith and it is wrong to persecute against it. Faith, however, is a personal choice one makes and is rarely consistent among its adherents: basically, the left policy is "be whatever religion you wanna be, but keep it yourself and don't be a dick about it."

Any hostility you may have been exposed to is likely the result of people being dicks about religion and the responses therein. There is also the distinct chance that more right (I.E. conservative) sources have focused only on leftist responses to religious issues rather than what, exactly, they are upset about.

With all this in mind, there are also many people who identify towards the right that have a similar or identical mindset of "be whatever religion you wanna be, but keep it to yourself and don't be a dick." There are also those on the left who push for social reform but only as it benefits themselves. There are also issues of what, specifically, a religion does that people find opposition towards. In the US, the left is generally intolerant of the Westborough Baptist Church, while the right is generally intolerant of Islam. The left and right both generally view Satanism and Scientology as hostile, and both sides generally have favorable opinions of Catholicism. In this respect, it's easier to ask "which religion?" when presented with the question of "is _____ intolerant or hostile towards religion?"

Faith and religion are so mutable and so varied even within the same church that it is impossible to say with perfect accuracy how any of them will respond to most complex social issues, and boy there are a lot of them that we should be aware of: racial equality, gender equality, social equality, reproductive rights, religious tolerance and a whole slew of others. Religions were largely the product of the times that created them, and very, very few grow with the world that they inhabit. Some concessions have been made, but by and large the world of religion has been stagnant and intolerant of change. The attitude of "if my book doesn't say it's good, then it's wrong" is present in every faith that I am aware of, though some do try to make amends. From a political perspective, it is much, much easier to cut religion out of the whole equation and focus on the commonality that we all share, which is that we are all human and we all deserve to be treated fairly, justly and equally. The conservative right in the US (who are mostly deeply religious) see this as an exclusion of their faith rather than an inclusion of the disenfranchised, which is what the liberal left argues it is.

That was a lot of words, so for the TL;DR summary: people on both sides of politics hate certain faiths or aspects of certain religions, and they are very loud to speak out about it. Don't use faith to justify hatred, bigotry or intolerance and you'll do just fine in any circle. If you rely on faith to support a view that directly harms another person based on anything other than the content of their character, then you should stop doing that. If you see people doing this, then they are not the kind of people you need to listen to. Don't hate people for having faith that enriches their lives. Don't hate people that do not feel a need to have religion as part of their lives. All this is true no matter where you fall on the political spectrum, and both sides have guilty parties.

This was an excellent post and it was all worth reading. Thank you.

# ¿ Mar 7, 2017 09:30

NikkolasKing: Apr 3, 2010

What I don't get is why or when the bromance of science, philosophy and religion ended. I've researched enough about religion and philosophy (science hurts my brain) to know that it was only a few short centuries ago when all of these things were bound together and got along just fine. The fascinating Scholastic tradition of Roman Catholicism for instance was built on the idea that humans can learn and understand everything, including God and metaphysical mater. Thomas Aquinas was not a gibbering Christian dope who said "The Lord knows and I'm free to be as ignorant as possible." He was a pretty smart dude and along with a lot of other deeply religious people he sincerely believed understanding of the world was perfectly in line with understanding God. At least, I think so. It has been a while.

But somewhere along the way, religion and science went their separate ways and the result is the discussion of the last several pages.

# ¿ Mar 9, 2017 13:08

NikkolasKing: Apr 3, 2010

How can you change a person's self-definition? This reminds me of a video I saw of a fellow speaking at the UN, praising how young people today will no longer be held down by the myth of race. Because even older and wiser people like himself, who understand racism is wrong, are still shackled by being brought up in a culture that places such an emphasis on it.

That poor man was idealistic to the point of absurdity. If anything, the concept of race has only gotten more entrenched in our lives with white nationalism on the rise all over.

But my point is, religion is still a more "real" to me than the concept of a white race. And I don't see how it's possible for humans to ever potentially grow beyond either one of these concepts.

# ¿ Mar 13, 2017 12:50

NikkolasKing: Apr 3, 2010

CommieGIR posted:

.....but isn't that the point of the outrage over White Nationalism and Populism rising again? Arguing that because its entrenched that we should accept its existence is rather a disgusting proposition, it follows that by that same logic we should accept sexism and other -isms just because they are culturally entrenched. Progress depends upon us throwing out entrenched ideas.

Just because White Nationalism is growing again does not mean we should accept the inevitable. He may be idealistic to a point of absurdity, but its an idealism we should promote.

Change is hard. My point was more: Religion has placed itself at the center of our culture and paraded itself as the end-all solution to our moral woes. When we know better than that now, but now religion presents itself as a pillar of the community and in people's lifes: A social centerpoint for friends and family.

We need to realize that we are perfectly connected and capable as a community and a society without religion defining what our community is.

My bad, I phrased that poorly. I wasn't trying to equate religion with racism, more to point to the idea of race still being a huge part of a person's identity even though that idea of race is largely bogus. I am a white guy (shocking, I know) so I've never felt any pride of importance with my "race" Religion is something far more substantial to me, even if I'm not part of any religion.

# ¿ Mar 13, 2017 13:10

NikkolasKing: Apr 3, 2010

CommieGIR posted:

Explain. How is religion substantial but you are agnostic?

History, tradition, philosophy. I love reading up on history, especially cultural history, and an understanding of religion obviously helps with that. I like Japanese history for instance so at present I'm reading up on Buddhism because I hope it will help me understand that history better.

And I've heard Jesus credited as the most important man in Western history. Him or Alexander or maybe Aristotle. But my point is just that, religion has been so integral to everything we know, that I can't imagine just shrugging it off as worthless, even if there is no God or afterlife.

# ¿ Mar 13, 2017 13:51

NikkolasKing: Apr 3, 2010

CommieGIR posted:

Easy. We can shrug it off right now. Its not integral, if it was, you wouldn't be agnostic. You are making the very argument that religions and Evangelicals make right now: "We need religion, its our moral center, without it, everything is chaos" but that's not true.

Jesus is hardly the most important man in Western History. Its the people who acted in his name that are important. He's just a motivator, not a cause.

History and Philosophy is not dependant upon religion, c'mon now, that's a bold claim if ever I heard one. Has religion contributed to these things? Sure, no denying that. But to claim that these things are DEPENDANT upon religion? No.

I'm really off this morning I guess. I wasn't trying to say those things depend on religion, merely that I find religion to be a useful tool to "get closer" to them. I dunno, I'm not good at this.

I've been interested in several religions and I've rejected just as many because, as you correctly note, you don't need a religion to have morals. Too many religions preach ideas about morality that I find completely disgusting. There's pretty much nothing I hate more than the Religious Right.

# ¿ Mar 13, 2017 14:01

NikkolasKing: Apr 3, 2010

Question. How does one embrace moral absolutism without the presence of a higher authority? What is evil now wasn't evil a few short centuries ago. Would you judge every racist or slave owner in history as evil when they could not possibly know any better?

# ¿ Mar 14, 2017 06:38

NikkolasKing: Apr 3, 2010

Shbobdb posted:

Why don't you kill everyone you see?

Is some higher power holding you back?

No, the culture I was raised in is holding me back.

But since culture changes quite a lot, I don't see how moral absolutism works without the presence of an unchanging force like God or whatever.

I'm not philosophy major, maybe there is a simple answer to this which is why I asked.

# ¿ Mar 14, 2017 06:42

NikkolasKing: Apr 3, 2010

Liquid Communism posted:

Not a big enough way. We should have given Sherman six months and as many torches as he could carry. A huge part of our present political problems stem from being insufficiently firm with the boot that was on the South's neck after the Civil War.

Uh, how would a brutal, war crime-heavy occupation "help?" The South already hated the North, why would murdering all of them fix this problem?

Ignoring how unethical it is, is it even practical? Do such bloody occupations have a good success rate of putting down all dissent?

Shbobdb posted:

Easy, culture does change.

So what?

Would culture changing make it OK to gently caress a baby until your dick breaks the child in half?

You are probably tempted to write something like "yeah, that'd be OK if I was raised in that culture" just to be contrarian but despite infanticide and pederasty being a thing throughout human history you won't find that practice. Also, as you start to type that "Yeah, that'd be OK" there is probably a really bad feeling in your gut.

Listen to your innate moral grammar. We've all got it. It's certainly not rational and not ideal. It's especially bad when it comes to in-group/out-group distinctions. But construct Republican policies as Trolley problems and they fail spectacularly every time.

There are five people tied to train tracks. There is a train coming on a parallel track. You can pull the lever to make the train run the five people over. This will make the people on the train be five minutes late to their appointments. Most of them are not serious but some are very important. However, you will be awarded a substantial insurance sum for killing those people and making those people late. Do you pull the lever?

What if it wasn't you being awarded that money. What if it was someone else who you didn't know but they are fantastically wealthy?

What does your innate sense of the good tell you to do?

Do I kill people for money? No. That would be wrong, obviously .But I think that's too simple and extreme.

But that's not my point. I was asking what in human society or culture defines good and evil since our ideas of those two things have changed constantly throughout history?

NikkolasKing fucked around with this message at 07:46 on Mar 14, 2017

# ¿ Mar 14, 2017 07:44

NikkolasKing: Apr 3, 2010

zh1 posted:

See, this is a misconception that could have been handled if the U.S. had even a halfway decent education system. Still, I remember learning as a child that many people "knew better" even back in the day. How is possible to be unaware of all the well-known abolitionists as an adult in loving 2017?

Okay, I went to public school but I know who John Brown was and I remember the Underground Railroad stuff.

But so what? What about a century before that? Was abolitionism big in the 17th or 18th century? That I honestly don't know a thing about.

And what if we went back even further, to Antiquity? Was everyone in Athens evil because they were racist and sexist as gently caress slave owners?

NikkolasKing fucked around with this message at 11:52 on Mar 14, 2017

# ¿ Mar 14, 2017 11:49

NikkolasKing: Apr 3, 2010

Heh, it's by far the longest and most thought-provoking thread I've ever made. Apart from some trolling, I'm glad I made this.

And that is a good and enlightened view you have there. I wish I could be less judgmental.

# ¿ Mar 14, 2017 12:47

NikkolasKing: Apr 3, 2010

Cingulate posted:

Crossposting from another thread because it's about a (former?) leftist's take on religion:

There are different ways to defend against this charge. A lot of people would claim human beings are naturally religious in just the right ways; if you just leave them alone, they will respect their parents, have sex in the right way, not worship false gods and devils, and so on. The poisoning of the mind that leads people into damnation-worthy behavior is only introduced into the world with the start of civilization (e.g., original sin), so these people would largely be saved. Any suffering in this world is inconsequential to the blessings of the afterlife, so if at all, these people were the lucky ones. If you care about how well they do in this world in the sense of how joyful their lives were, you're already coming from the wrong paradigm: you're assuming joy is good! It's not, says the religious person. The good life is the life lived according to the rules of God.
The Quran has a few passages where people ask Mohammed to show them miracles, and he, frustrated, points at the heavens and goes: at night it is dark so you can sleep, but there are still stars so you can maneuver at sea. The rain falls to nourish the crops. The mighty winds roar. To those whose hearts aren't closed already, these are clear signs.
(This works better if you assume salvation depends on doing good deeds and avoiding sinful ones, ignoring good deeds like pilgrimage to mecca. Doesn't work so well if you're a Lutheran I guess.)

However, I think the strongest, most consistent response a religious person can bring to this is to simply point to God's incomprehensibility. It doesn't seem just to you. Well, your mind is not the arbiter of justice. God's mind, however, is.

So the fundamental incompatibility here is that leftism typically values, often above all others, the material well-being of the many. Joy in this world. Not starving to death. Not seeing your children die before you. I think if you accept that this is of tremendous importance, not all religion becomes impossible for you, but a lot, maybe even most, do.
(This is I think somewhat different, although related, to the theodizee.)

A very intriguing response, thank you.

I have the utmost respect for people who can do this. To have such unwavering, unbreakable faith is a virtue I have never been able to possess, which is part of why I'm agnostic. If a monk or nun or priest can give everything in this life to pursue enlightenment or salvation or whatever, that is amazing and commendable.

But my "Leftist sensibilities" hold me back, as well as well as various personality flaws.

# ¿ Mar 15, 2017 15:44

NikkolasKing: Apr 3, 2010

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'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'm culturally Christian, I'm an atheist, I'm moderately hostile to some religions aspects (I think it's fair to say that as a whole, today, the actual impact of Islam and at least the catholic and orthodox churches is bad), but I also really appreciate others (certain moral teachings, cultural aspects such as the inherent poetry of the texts, the spirit of community).
Which is I guess about average on this board.

I'm pretty Far Left. I have bounced around a lot in my life but I always come back here because I think big government is good as it's a necessary tool to enforce equality and help people. My religious views are Agnostic but highly tolerant and interested in all faiths because they are fascinating and might be totally or partially right.

# ¿ Mar 16, 2017 15:42

NikkolasKing: Apr 3, 2010

edit: Should have read TomViolence's post. They made the point I was trying to make. Oh well.

NikkolasKing fucked around with this message at 14:14 on Mar 20, 2017

# ¿ Mar 20, 2017 14:12

NikkolasKing: Apr 3, 2010

I don't think France's burkini stuff is a feminist issue at all? It's about secularism, pure and simple. France is the living embodiment of everything the US Religious Right fears. Religion is adamantly kept out of the public square and government because of French cultural history of a lot of wars and other bad poo poo happening because of religion.

This is the explanation I got from French posters and diplomats anyway.

# ¿ Mar 22, 2017 19:12

NikkolasKing: Apr 3, 2010

RasperFat posted:

Are you talking about Reza Aslan? He knows a lot about religions but I don't know if he is a good example to defend the virtues of religion. He definitely knows his poo poo, but even he says that there's no real way to tell the difference between a cult and a religion. He then laughs it off as how wacky and diverse religion is, without critically examining how troubling that is.

I don't see why it's troubling. I'd say it's less to do with how diverse religions are and more to do with how diverse humans are. People want and need different things and that is why there are so many faiths out there. I'm personally very relativistic when it comes to assessing religions vs. cults because the whole idea of "deprogramming" is more disturbing than the idea of brainwashing, at least to me.

# ¿ Apr 2, 2017 14:05

NikkolasKing: Apr 3, 2010

Shbobdb posted:

There really aren't a lot of religions out there if you think about local concentration as opposed to global existence. Usually just one particular religion fills the niche for the area.

Edit: People also very rarely choose their creed. That's why it has special protections.

Thinking that people "choose" their religion is a very modern, essentially hyper-protestant view of how religion works and doesn't really apply outside of a very narrow subset of humanity.

I have no doubt most people just stay whatever it is they were brought up as, same with their politics. But this is the Information Age. There's no excuse to not be curious about Taoism even if you were raised in Kansas, or trying to learn about Calvinism even if you were born in China.

I have never delved into some scholarly level of research on any religion but I've watched videos and read articles describing dozens of them. Educating yourself has never been easier in the history of our species and there's no excuse to just give into tribalism and think "oh, well, I was raised Catholic so who needs that Buddhism poo poo anyway." Religion is about self-discovery and that isn't something handed to you on a plate.

That's how I have lived, anyway. Not trying to invalidate anyone else's experience.

NikkolasKing fucked around with this message at 20:51 on Apr 2, 2017

# ¿ Apr 2, 2017 20:48

NikkolasKing: Apr 3, 2010

Shbobdb posted:

FTFY.

Your view on religion is informed by your culture, just as much as the unquestioning people you decry.

Ironic considering I dislike both Protestantism and individualism. But you are of course absolutely right. I am very privileged to live in this time and place. Even a few decades ago here in the US my forays into 'alternative religions" would have been shunned.

RasperFat posted:

You really don't see why it's troubling that Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. are on the same level playing field as Scientology, the Manson family, Heaven's Gate, etc.?

They are functionally the same thing. Their beliefs and faiths are both equally valid. Xenu dropping alien souls around volcanoes and blowing them up with H-bombs, then having those alien souls cause mental trauma in our human bodies, is philosophically, morally, and tautologically equivalent to meeting Jesus in heaven, or reaching Nirvana, or making good with Vishnu.

What this means is any rear end in a top hat(s) can make any spiritual claim they want. Aslan's rosy coverage of Scientology should be sending up red flags, but it's presented as being a progressive step towards tolerance. Scientology should meet the definition for dangerous cult to any reasonable person. They literally grift as much as they can from vulnerable people, as well as shady kidnappings and denying medical services. Hubbard was a huge piece of poo poo who was trying to get rich off religion. Aslan covering them so nicely will directly lead to people's lives being ruined because they might just try out this Scientology thing it doesn't seem so bad.

You do realize there are a lot of people who think Islam is the greatest evil of our times? That it is essentially violent and misogynistic and it was founded by a pedophile warlord?

Those cults you mentioned are bad and they give bad names to new religious movements. But Scientology is such a joke that everyone knows about Xenu. Scientology is the punchline of late night talkshow jokes and YouTube videos. There are Wikipedia pages on the crazy schemes they planned. Mr. Aslan could not possibly make the public more aware of Scientology's madness. Anyone who is oblivious to it at this stage will never learn.

# ¿ Apr 2, 2017 21:01

NikkolasKing: Apr 3, 2010

RasperFat posted:

I'm not sure what a racist and xenophobic attitude has to do with the fact that there are no real differences between religions and cults on a base and general level. Islam is definitely violent and misogynistic, but not any more so than the other Abrahamic religions.

Scientology is actually a growing faith, and puff pieces like Aslan's gives them mainstream respect. Did you actually read the article or watch the special? It's very much "look how well this faith is working for these totally normal folks".

If showing people how crazy a faith is turned them away from it we would have almost no religions. In a vacuum, if someone came and told you that you are actually created by the will of Yahweh and you must cut off your foreskin to appease Him, it would seem crazy but the Jewish faith has survived for thousands of years. It someone came and told you that your body is actually a vessel for energy from Brahman and you will return to the pool of spiritual energy once you die and form a new vessel, it would seem crazy. But Hinduism has survived for thousands of years.

You still haven't responded to the fundamental problem of never being able to actually divide religions into "real religions" and "cults". It's not that those cults make new religions look bad, it's that they cannot be distinguished from mainstream religions.

I'm not responding to it because I don't disagree with it. A religion is a religion. I try as hard as I can to be actively non-judgmental about such things.

If your solution is we should laugh at all religions like we do Scientology, that isn't ever going to happen for a variety of reasons.

# ¿ Apr 2, 2017 22:10

NikkolasKing: Apr 3, 2010

Panzeh posted:

This is an opinion borne out of pure nostalgia, and that's all religion has to offer.

I would say this is objectively wrong if for no other reason than people still keep making religions.

Nostalgia or tradition or what-have-you is a strong motivator but I'd say it's more that people simply have powerful imaginations and want to believe in something. The thing that I've been reading up on lately are "UFO Religions" because, at first, it sounds absolutely absurd, a bizarre combination of two totally unrelated things. And yet when I gave it a bit more thought, it's a match made in Heaven.

Infinite Karma posted:

There's nothing wrong with actually judging the practices of various religions and their believers.

You might find some of them good, and support them. You might be indifferent to some, and tolerate them. Some, you might disagree with, but tolerate. And some, you might disagree with, and actively oppose.

So go ahead and support the role of church in organizing communities and charitable service, think it's benignly weird that they eat the (literal) body and blood of their god, disagree with their insistence on abstinence before marriage, and hatefully condemn them for promoting LBGTQ conversion therapy and abusive practices like shunning.

It doesn't matter how stupid the stories about where we came from, or what happens after we die are. Feel free to laugh or not laugh, it doesn't make much difference. When your neighbors do things that you believe are actively harmful in the world, it's your responsibility to speak up. They usually aren't shy about speaking up when someone does something their beliefs teach them to oppose.

RasperFat posted:

A completely nonjudgemental attitude is actually not a good thing. We should be judging religions on their backwards and harmful beliefs. Scientologists reject the entire field of psychology and its pharmacology as a harmful lie. This objectively causes harm in people's lives. Jehovah's Witness won't allow themselves or their children to get blood transfusions. This objectively causes harm in people's lives.

The solution isn't to smugly deride people that practice religion and call them all dumb babies. We do need to stop giving so much credence to people's faith though, and Aslan's Believer series does exactly that. It gives undue respect to people's beliefs, says they are all just different and we can't judge.

I call complete bullshit on trying to apply this extreme moral relativism. Doesn't really work for cultures either. I don't really care that people were raised a certain way or it was in the past so we "didn't know any better". Holding beliefs that defend slavery, sexist gender roles, xenophobia, etc. is a lovely thing even in ignorance. It doesn't mean that we slaughter all the religious leaders or outlaw religious practice, but it does mean we need to stop adding and air of reverence to people's nonsensical beliefs.

What makes me the supreme arbiter of what is right and wrong? A man who gives up everything to go live in a Christian or Buddhist monastery is seen as self-sacrificing, admirable and wise. The guy who gives up everything to go hang with Bubba McCharlatan is judged a fool. Hell, from what I've been told, Christianity itself started as a doomsday cult and a lot of the self-sacrifice in the New Testament is because Paul and friends thought the world was literally coming to an end in their lifetimes. (this might be totally wrong but I recall a lecture on the New Testament where the lecturer stressed this point)

My point is, cultural sensitivity is already murky enough. Religion is one step even higher, at least in my view. I fail at it constantly but I do try to be tolerant when it comes to things like this.

NikkolasKing fucked around with this message at 11:26 on Apr 3, 2017

# ¿ Apr 3, 2017 11:24

NikkolasKing: Apr 3, 2010

Agnosticnixie posted:

I have not. This might amaze you but the catholic church has a bit of a history with fascism and there are very few fascist dictatorships they didn't actively provide moral support to, including a few nazi puppet states. Protestant churches also have a history of broadly opposing revolutionary movements and of being largely creatures of the state. Canadian mennonites actually used to publish nazi literature almost all the way to the war.

Religion is ultimately an institutional power structure, personal spirituality is a modern phenomenon and even Tolstoy's christian mysticism was opposed by official religious institutions.

But is it fair to single out religion for this? Hierarchy and Conservatism are just facts of life and have been facts of life forever. Tolstoy existed around the same time as many other Anarchists who were mostly Atheists. Liberalism growing in society effected the religious and the non-religious. Reactionary politics growing more popular effected the religious and the non-religious.

# ¿ Apr 5, 2017 12:35

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 1, 2024 16:48

NikkolasKing: Apr 3, 2010

Avalerion posted:

Soldier jumping on a grenade to save his mates is a good dude, a soldier jumping on a grenade just to prove that he's willing to do it is an idiot (and if he knows he'll somehow just resurrect afterwards - he's just a showoff). What exactly is god/Jesus dying supposed to have accomplished instead of proving something? Personally I'd be more willing to buy into his love if he spend that energy on curing cancer or ending world hunger.

He removed the inherent taint of original sin in all of us. At least I think that's it. So Jesus potentially saved your immortal soul and you'll be glad for that when you spend infinite lifetimes in bliss, even if you went through one life time in hunger.

Not a Christian but I believe this is the accepted reasoning.

# ¿ Apr 7, 2017 09:03

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Is the Left Hostile to Religion?