Is the Left Hostile to Religion?

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

Crowsbeak: Oct 9, 2012; by Azathoth; Lipstick Apathy

RasperFat posted:

1. I already covered that earlier in thread, but here's a link. It's actually 28%, I was rounding down.

2. This is not really true. Here is how NYT covers religion, not much different than any other major publication. "What a Buddhist Monk Taught Xi Jinping", "Reza Aslan Thinks TV Can End Bigotry", "understanding what bonds is together as humans is not the job of science", "What Jesus Can Teach Today's Muslims". Do you really not see the reverence religion is given by the tone of these articles?

3. Again, not mutually exclusive and the neoliberals aren't the sole impetus behind lovely education.

4. Better media representation is exactly what I'm saying. Asshats like Hitchens and Dawkins somehow became the face for atheism, instead of non bigoted people like Sagan and PZ Meyers. Atheist characters on TV and movies are usually depicted as detached nerds that have weak social skills. Things are getting better, but we aren't there yet. Don't forget we are only a couple decades out from when it became publicly acceptable to be a nonbeliever.

For the definition of "left" where people should have equality in social status snd economic justice, then yes.

I'm not saying that religion is the sole cause of these problems, but that it hurts more than it helps. When the entire population of a region is highly religious, it is almost always oppressive. Did you seriously look at all the 95+% countries and not see an alarming trend?

Secularism appears to be a catalyst for progressivism, and religion appears to be a catalyst for conservatism. That doesn't mean when someone converts they immediately become more Nazi-esque or when deconverting they start become champions of socialism. It means that having high religiosity in a population makes it more reactive and tradition bound, and is therefore something that we should try to change.

A quarter agree god can reward good deeds that doesn't mean they're all literal prosperity gospel believers.

2. So now the fact that they don't bar stories about certain groups that are religous that is showing reverence for religion.

3. They're the main group.

4. I wonder what made anyone think that.

TO the rest, correlation is not causation. Sorry.

Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 00:21 on Mar 28, 2017

# ¿ Mar 27, 2017 23:43

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 10, 2024 16:55

Crowsbeak: Oct 9, 2012; by Azathoth; Lipstick Apathy

RasperFat posted:

No, a quarter believe God gives monetary reward for good deeds. It's insidious and is something far more widespread than we like to admit.

It's giving a critical weight behind religious perspectives and approaches that is undeserving. Secular state solutions are orders of magnitude more effective than religious ones, but they run articles like these pretending these faiths can effectively solve anything.

Neoliberals are not a good friend to education, but don't pretend they are the "main group" making it worse. Full on conservatism and libertarianism is anti-intellectual and actively trying to tear down education on a national level. You think Hillary's Secretary of Education would be worse than Betsy Devos or would be trying to cut education as much as Trump?

You keep repeating "correlation is not causation" like a mantra, but it doesn't work that way. When you see such a strong correlation, you investigate to see if there is causation. And to no surprise there are many ways that religions directly increase conservatism including messaging, political activism, and psychological/philosophical influence. In aggregate, religion trends heavily conservative. From this we can surmise that religion does have a causative role in increasing conservatism.

This doesn't mean every iteration of religion is conservative or bad, but that collectively it has a net negative influence. It is incredibly easily corrupted because demagogues have perceived divine influence, making it a shaky potential ally at best.

Given all this information, religion presents, and will always present, more barriers to leftism than it can help with. Increasing secularization acts as a catalyst for leftism, and should be encouraged alongside the intertwined and important fights for social and economic equality.

1. Yeah you're putting words into the responders mouths there.

2. Yeah this is litterally. "I don't want magazines reporting on people having good experiences through religion. Do you want them to if their publishing such a story have someone then say. OH AND RELIGION MADE MY LIFE BAD!

3.Yeah neoliberalism and libertarianism are very much intertwined.

4. Yeah considering the secularization you want is the kind that lead to Syria or Turkey. I can do without that. Also you're not explaining how religion is the cause rather then abject loving poverty. nor could you ever ignore the fact that sevral of the American states with low religiosity are the Koch bros laboratories.

ALso if you're wondering why Athiests get portrayed badly. Maybe consider that you get mad at the NYT for publishing an article about Budhist monks.

Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 01:56 on Mar 28, 2017

# ¿ Mar 28, 2017 01:54

Crowsbeak: Oct 9, 2012; by Azathoth; Lipstick Apathy

RasperFat posted:

"God will always reward true faith with material blessings." was the question. Don't try to obfuscate the data because it's an unpleasant fact.

No, I said religious coverage and religious experts should be limited to religion. Running articles on how faith can erase hatred between political religious groups is giving credence to religion that is undeserving. Want to do an article about Monks or whatever? Run it in the same way as a cultural piece about Trekkies or nature enthusiasts, not as a social or political authority. I'm not yelling at the NYT, I'm saying this bias exists and curtailing it will ultimately help progressive causes.

Considering that Turkey ranks at 82% importance of religion and Syria at 89%, I fail to see how these are indicative at all of secular nations.

Religion is a cause of conservatism because it is inherently reactionary, tradition bound, and authoritarian. It is also a large influence in people's behaviors and worldview. Given the evidence, religion ultimately enables conservatism and acts as a roadblock for equality.

Ohlol, so when it actually does do something good, you say it should be ignored. Also you do know that Iraq, Syria and Turkey spent at least 50 years run by regimes that preached a message against religion influencing their states? Didn't work out to well as it turns out. In many ways it reinforced religion.

# ¿ Mar 28, 2017 02:53

Crowsbeak: Oct 9, 2012; by Azathoth; Lipstick Apathy

khwarezm posted:

Syria and Turkey are 'Secular' more in comparison to surrounding countries than in any sense that would be considered secular in the west. In Syria it was mostly preoccupied with attempting to stem the flow of radical Saudi influenced ideologies (which failed obviously) and in any event there's been a complete failure to prevent particular religious groups, particularly the Alawites, from establishing a dominate, sectarian political position in the country. Additionally the government has received massive assistance from Iran and Hezbollah while seemingly the most tolerable faction in the whole war, the SDF, are probably the most genuinely Secular. I don't even know what lessons we're meant to draw about Secularism in this context.

In any event the more avowedly non-secular nations nearby are loving Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan and other such places. And Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf nations show the limits of tying poverty to religiosity so strongly, since they manage to be fabulously wealthy, extremely religious and highly oppressive all at the same time!

I notice hiw you avoided how turkey attempted to completley remove religion from it in a way advocated by raspar.

# ¿ Mar 28, 2017 04:41

Crowsbeak: Oct 9, 2012; by Azathoth; Lipstick Apathy

I lov how people are acting like there were never secularization campaigns in the middle east.

# ¿ Mar 28, 2017 07:48

Crowsbeak: Oct 9, 2012; by Azathoth; Lipstick Apathy

Wouldn't qlot of your guys guys fantasy land requure the "defanging " that Attaturk did in Turkey? I mean to weaken the hold sych an "evil" thing has on the poor.

# ¿ Mar 28, 2017 14:42

Crowsbeak: Oct 9, 2012; by Azathoth; Lipstick Apathy

Agnosticnixie posted:

A funny thing is the predecessors of the Muslim brotherhood; imperialist powers had a tendency to see early political islam as a convenient tool to oppose both arab socialists and the then seen as suspiciously socialist jews in the region (a lot of early zionists were former bundists for one, it took until more or less the late 50s for palestinian jews and later Israel to not be seen as a potential soviet fifth column)

It's funny how you stop understanding that cultural forces are a thing the moment it doesn't appeal to your religious sentimentalism.

Hey Raspar's the one demanding media publications not post articles that are semi positive about someones religious experiences. I also like how the reaction to repressive secular regimes was entirely the result of foreign intervention. I mean its not like trying to destroy a peoples way of life can produce a reaction at all. Look I just find it funny how the arch secularists like to pretend that these middle eastern regimes were not very repressive or anything.

Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 21:49 on Mar 28, 2017

# ¿ Mar 28, 2017 21:45

Crowsbeak: Oct 9, 2012; by Azathoth; Lipstick Apathy

Yeah the fact you get mad that its human interest proves my point. maybe some people could find something from the Buddhist monks. You might not, but others might> As long as their not going to die what do you care if some people decide to become spiritual because of a dumb liberal newspaper story? Also respectable political pundits? Like you know that the reason some poo poo head like Huckabeee gets respect isn't because he's religious right? Its because the whole neoliberal truth is in the middle ideas that pervade journalism. Also :lol:

at secular leaders not being repressive. I don't even need to explain the :lol:

because anyone with knowledge of the twentieth century knows thats horseshit.

# ¿ Mar 29, 2017 05:24

Crowsbeak: Oct 9, 2012; by Azathoth; Lipstick Apathy

Alhazred posted:

That doesn't really make God any less of an rear end in a top hat considering he could have intervened long before Sodom became such a shithole.

IE God should just turn us into cenobites.

# ¿ Apr 2, 2017 20:18

Crowsbeak: Oct 9, 2012; by Azathoth; Lipstick Apathy