Right-Wing Discussion Thread XVI: Making Things Right Again

[Locus Praemonstratus]

Point One: You’re guilty of this, just as much as any religious, because you preference your own group and regularly shun other groups.
Point Two: I’m pretty sure if we asked the CDT about ignorance, the first word to pop up would be ‘Kowani’.
Point Three: This is exactly what Atheists do, too, because there is no real distinction in education and indoctrination.
Point Four: O Lord, their blood soaks the ground. How long, Lord? How much longer until you bring Justice upon the Earth?

All in all, these are arbitrary criteria. Why not just admit that you want to eliminate religion rather than frame it in language of enlightenment?

I don't think that Kowani is denying that he wants to eliminate religion. He even said it himself:

As far as possible, the beliefs of the people.

Not that I disagree, but dressing it up as he (it’s all for the good of society!) did not make this fact any less apparent.

[Kowani]

Point one: Tribalism.
Point two: Ignorance.
Point three: Indoctrination of children with ideas dedicated towards the othering of people.
Point four: Direct opposition between state and religious laws. The idea of enlightened secularism only works with the apatheistic. Those that actually care cannot abide that.
Point five: Those who will, in secret, utilize religion to harm others.

Points one through three are inherent in human nature. Enforcing state laws no matter what religious people believe can be done without a complete ban, and those who use it as an excuse to harm others can be thrown in prison without a complete ban. Also, banning region will not solve the last point, as someone who will harm others in secret will have no qualms about practicing religion and promoting it in secret too.

1-3 may be intrinsic to human nature, but they can be alleviated by eliminating the justifications as much as possible.
5: I am concerned with the motivation. You cannot control for every psychopath. You can prevent the motivation for normal people to deny their kids vaccinations or blood transfusions.

Point one: Tribalism.
Point two: Ignorance.
Point three: Indoctrination of children with ideas dedicated towards the othering of people.
Point four: Direct opposition between state and religious laws. The idea of enlightened secularism only works with the apatheistic. Those that actually care cannot abide that.
Point five: Those who will, in secret, utilize religion to harm others.

I'm confused about the last bit, mate. Namely Point Five (and to a lesser extent, Point Three) and how it relates to your self-professed egoist philosophy. May you please explain, because it seems to be more a more utilitarian form of moral reasoning than an egoist form of moral reasoning, y'know?

I believe I said at one point that the State is utilitarian.

As far as possible, the beliefs of the people.

So what would your proposed regime do to clergy members?

Depends. Do they keep preaching?

As far as possible, the beliefs of the people.

that sounds incredibly authoritarian.

True.

Point one: Tribalism.
Point two: Ignorance.
Point three: Indoctrination of children with ideas dedicated towards the othering of people.
Point four: Direct opposition between state and religious laws. The idea of enlightened secularism only works with the apatheistic. Those that actually care cannot abide that.
Point five: Those who will, in secret, utilize religion to harm others.

Point One: You’re guilty of this, just as much as any religious, because you preference your own group and regularly shun other groups.

I am aware. I am attempting to remove one of the motivations for tribalism. The reason religion has been picked is because it has harmful doctrines. Atheism was not chosen for elimination because it has no doctrines.

Point Two: I’m pretty if we asked the CDT about ignorance, the first word to pop up would be ‘Kowani’.

Statistics would disagree.

Point Three: This is exactly what Atheists do, too, because there is no real distinction in education and indoctrination.

Congratulations on missing the point.

Point Four: O Lord, their blood soaks the ground. How long, Lord? How much longer until you bring Justice upon the Earth?

What?

All in all, these are arbitrary criteria. Why not just admit that you want to eliminate religion rather than frame it in language of enlightenment?

I admitted that at the very beginning.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Given how rapidly Christianity is shrinking in the west anything is possible.

It surely won't become polytheistic, lol. The West will destroy itself in the next century or two (inshallah) anyways.

Not even lol. It's gonna change for sure but "destroy itself" is just silly.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

I don't think that Kowani is denying that he wants to eliminate religion. He even said it himself:

Not that I disagree, but dressing it up as he (it’s all for the good of society!) did not make this fact any less apparent.

I beg your pardon? No offense intended, but I admit that I'm having difficulty parsing the intended meaning of this message; may you please rephrase it?

[Locus Praemonstratus]

Point One: You’re guilty of this, just as much as any religious, because you preference your own group and regularly shun other groups.
Point Two: I’m pretty sure if we asked the CDT about ignorance, the first word to pop up would be ‘Kowani’.
Point Three: This is exactly what Atheists do, too, because there is no real distinction in education and indoctrination.
Point Four: O Lord, their blood soaks the ground. How long, Lord? How much longer until you bring Justice upon the Earth?

All in all, these are arbitrary criteria. Why not just admit that you want to eliminate religion rather than frame it in language of enlightenment?

Banning religion is not an enlightenment value at all. At least, not a necessary or good enlightenment value.

It’s naturally what follows from Enlightenment values, I’m afraid, as we can see in a post-enlightenment world.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

What do you mean by private sphere?

As far as possible, the beliefs of the people.

So you want to pursue eliminating religion from everyone's beliefs by any necessary and effective means?

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

I'm confused about the last bit, mate. Namely Point Five (and to a lesser extent, Point Three) and how it relates to your self-professed egoist philosophy. May you please explain, because it seems to be more a more utilitarian form of moral reasoning than an egoist form of moral reasoning, y'know?

I believe I said at one point that the State is utilitarian.

Ah. My apologies, I was under the impression that you were arguing from the perspective of your personal philosophy, and not your political one.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

As far as possible, the beliefs of the people.

So you want to pursue eliminating religion from everyone's beliefs by any necessary and effective means?

I think that is obvious.

[Kowani]

As far as possible, the beliefs of the people.

So you want to pursue eliminating religion from everyone's beliefs by any necessary and effective means?

The preferred method would be merely the continuation of current trends, although with certain adjustments. I prefer to guide, rather than force.

[Locus Praemonstratus]

Not that I disagree, but dressing it up as he (it’s all for the good of society!) did not make this fact any less apparent.

I beg your pardon? No offense intended, but I admit that I'm having difficulty parsing the intended meaning of this message; may you please rephrase it?

Kowani dressed it up to sound a bit nicer, for example, that it should benefit society, but his criteria is arbitrary and goal, transparent (not that he intended to hide it).

[Washington Resistance Army]

Not that I disagree, but dressing it up as he (it’s all for the good of society!) did not make this fact any less apparent.

I beg your pardon? No offense intended, but I admit that I'm having difficulty parsing the intended meaning of this message; may you please rephrase it?

Do you actually talk like this

[Camelone]

So what would your proposed regime do to clergy members?

Depends. Do they keep preaching?

Let's say yes. Let's also consider Communion, prayers, reading Scripture, and teaching their congregation as examples from a Christian viewpoint.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

I beg your pardon? No offense intended, but I admit that I'm having difficulty parsing the intended meaning of this message; may you please rephrase it?

Do you actually talk like this

Yes. Why do you ask?

[Cappuccina]

It surely won't become polytheistic, lol. The West will destroy itself in the next century or two (inshallah) anyways.

Not even lol. It's gonna change for sure but "destroy itself" is just silly.

The loss of its moral center (Christianity) has left the West as a literally soulless husk that doesn't even realize it's already died.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Banning religion is not an enlightenment value at all. At least, not a necessary or good enlightenment value.

It’s naturally what follows from Enlightenment values, I’m afraid, as we can see in a post-enlightenment world.

No it's not. Most thinkers influenced by the enlightenment advocate religious freedom, not state mandated atheism.

[Kowani]

I believe I said at one point that the State is utilitarian.

Ah. My apologies, I was under the impression that you were arguing from the perspective of your personal philosophy, and not your political one.

Oh, no.

Do you actually talk like this

Yes. Why do you ask?

I said this once before, but: My language has a formal register, and you’re still more formal.

[North German Realm]

Given how rapidly Christianity is shrinking in the west anything is possible.

It surely won't become polytheistic, lol. The West will destroy itself in the next century or two (inshallah) anyways.

Not before Islam finally kicks the bucket. The meme that the West is dying now that Christianity can't force its boot on everyone's throat is one that needs to die tbh.

(And no. I wouldn't say heathenism and other forms of modern paganism would become the norm, but they're seeing more conversion-out-of-thought in this last 50 years than Islam has in the last 1400 years at any rate)

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

Yes. Why do you ask?

I said this once before, but: My language has a formal register, and you’re still more formal.

As such, I wish to thank you for the compliment.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Not even lol. It's gonna change for sure but "destroy itself" is just silly.

The loss of its moral center (Christianity) has left the West as a literally soulless husk that doesn't even realize it's already died.

If the current west is dead that speaks poorly for the rest of the world. Don't get me wrong I'll rant all day about the current state of the west, America in particular, but it's still leagues ahead of anywhere else in the world.

[Kowani]

I said this once before, but: My language has a formal register, and you’re still more formal.

As such, I wish to thank you for the compliment.

That wasn’t a compliment. One has to know how to code-switch.

[Locus Praemonstratus]

Not even lol. It's gonna change for sure but "destroy itself" is just silly.

The loss of its moral center (Christianity) has left the West as a literally soulless husk that doesn't even realize it's already died.

Liberalism is just a form of secularised Puritanism but without the redeeming Christianity.

[Cappuccina]

It’s naturally what follows from Enlightenment values, I’m afraid, as we can see in a post-enlightenment world.

No it's not. Most thinkers influenced by the enlightenment advocate religious freedom, not state mandated atheism.

Secularism is simply state atheism with jimmies sprinkled on top.

[Locus Praemonstratus]

No it's not. Most thinkers influenced by the enlightenment advocate religious freedom, not state mandated atheism.

Secularism is simply state atheism with jimmies sprinkled on top.

Lotta good points here.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

As such, I wish to thank you for the compliment.

That wasn’t a compliment. One has to know how to code-switch.

Really? But I don't do slang particularly well. Nor do I do informal language particularly well. In fact, one might as well have a floating neon sign above my head with an arrow pointing towards me that reads "P O S H" in large text.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

So you want to pursue eliminating religion from everyone's beliefs by any necessary and effective means?

The preferred method would be merely the continuation of current trends, although with certain adjustments. I prefer to guide, rather than force.

I support current trends, just not bans.

The loss of its moral center (Christianity) has left the West as a literally soulless husk that doesn't even realize it's already died.

Liberalism is just a form of secularised Puritanism but without the redeeming Christianity.

Christianity does not redeem something as overregulated as Puritanism. Liberalism also did not result in the literal hanging of people for being "witches."