NationStates

GuessTheAltAccount wrote:

Lady Victory wrote:
That's all very fascinating.

Except none of what you just said has anything to do with religion.

Care to address the last paragraph recently edited into the OP, then?

Norway is offended that you're ignorant of it's existence.

GuessTheAltAccount wrote:

The Rich Port wrote:So... What's you answer to religion somehow promoting hierarchical fascism?

Why on Earth didn't you ask that follow-up question the first time?

Anyway...

A. Stop sugar-coating religion. You sugar-coat something, you encourage it. Christians who are otherwise progressive wouldn't sugar-coat Trump, they'd put honesty about him ahead of politeness. Now let's take that same lesson and apply it to religion.

B. Stop with the special pleading about how [insert pet cause here] is more compatible with religion than it actually is. A guy who wants to smoke a reefer without going to jail over it, or a gay person who wants to marry the love of their life and adopt kids together... apart from being less severely harmed by religion than a person waiting for stem cell cures on their deathbed, have more in common with that individual AND with each other than the one who try to pretend it isn't religion that's holding them back seem to realize, and if they all saw in each other the shared common ground in being harmed by religion, they could all unite and join together in shared opposition to it.

The Rich Port wrote:And if you're not advocating for systematic slaughter and/or censorship then this thread is kind of pointless.

That's a false dichotomy fit to rival "God of the gaps."

People who are actually progressive as opposed to being pseudo-fascist would not advocate for Trump unless they're also dishonest. Trump is not at all progressive in any way.

Which, yeah, while that happens... People also do that with religion. Unfortunately, human beings are also imperfect. That doesn't mean they deserve to be tyrannized or terrorized and it's no excuse for either China or Russia to actively discourage religion.

Nakena wrote:

The Rich Port wrote:Germany doesn't restrict fascism or Nazism actively, and even if it technically does, it uses education and social work to PREVENT it.

Wrong. Nazism as ideology is explicitly banned in Germany.

The exception that's not really an exception that proves the rule

Germany's main weapon against Nazism is democracy and education. Even if they use coercion... Coercion is a necessity against toxic society and culture.

But at the same time, you don't combat authoritarianism and supremacy with authoritarianism and supremacy, you combat it with justice and democracy.

The Rich Port wrote:Germany's main weapon against Nazism is democracy and education. Even if they use coercion... Coercion is a necessity against toxic society and culture.

No it did so with economic sucess and vastly improved living standards. Thats how West Germany legitimated itself. Nazism having lost a war also plays into this obviously. I dont think education played much a role.

The Rich Port wrote:But at the same time, you don't combat authoritarianism and supremacy with authoritarianism and supremacy, you combat it with justice and democracy.

Thats why Germany has recently passed a spree of new hate speech laws?

None of these is a bad thing, though.

My main beef is otherizing of women and the LGBT community. Not all Christians (to name who I’m familiar with), but many do and that fosters an environment of hostility and violence. Not asking for acceptance but rather, respect. Which yes, I’m aware, is a two way street.

Other than that, I’m not going to say much else.

Alien Overlord wrote:You talk about gun culture and mention Waco as though Waco is somehow an example of why we shouldn't have gun ownership-If anything Waco should serve as a perfect example of why it's so important to maintain a strong policy for firearms. The whole Waco ordeal was a mess for the agencies involved in it, it was handled so poorly that it is a dark stain on the history of the ATF and FBI even today. While i digress since this isn't the main point of your post, but I do feel it is all worth mentioning.

Did you even click the link?

Alien Overlord wrote:I disagree with your assessment that religion is somehow mostly to blame for homophobia. Looking at modern cultural attitudes across the world it's apparent that homophobia is rampant not in nations where religion has been most active in the last hundred years, but in the former Soviet Union and Warsaw pact nations, as well as more conservative nations such as South Korea, Indonesia, India and modern Greece. Religion was actively fought in many of these nations, yet homophobia still remains a rampant issue. Alongside that, since basically all nations and cultures have had a religious presence at one point or another, religion becomes an easy but unfair scapegoat. Correlation does not imply causation.

The stronger the correlation, the stronger the likelihood that the factors are related.

I already mentioned that religion isn't the only source of it, but it seems to be the strongest source in the context of modern democracies where a dictator cannot impose it on the people.

Alien Overlord wrote:For another very good example, you have the NSDAP in Germany during the second world war. The party was fascist and atheist in nature. It was the catholic church which actively worked to help fleeing jews escape the brutal regime, which developed a severe homophobia despite rejecting religion.

Hitler claimed at his rallies that God was with them.

You could argue he wasn't a true Christian, but it doesn't matter. True Christian cannot really be defined.

Alien Overlord wrote:I also strongly reject your opinion that religion is somehow anti-charity.

Not anti-charity, necessarily, but definitely anti-welfare, and that erosion of welfare in practice ends up eventually straining the resources of the genuinely charitable, as mentioned in the link. I have no doubt that some of the opponents of welfare genuinely see the replacement of welfare by charity as an end in itself, rather than a means to an end, but if that end in itself leads in practice to poor people dying of hypothermia in the streets, at what point does the moral imperative to save lives take priority over the moral imperative to make sure they aren't saved with other people's tax dollars?

Weinberg once said for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. Religious people believing we must refrain on principle from using other people's tax dollars, even to save the lives of the poor, sounds like a prime example of that.

Alien Overlord wrote:If we're going to blame religion for something, we should probably blame the fanaticism that originates in many Islamic nations, or possibly stem cell research. However is it truly fair to blame those opposing stem cell research? Especially since that opposition is born from a strong desire to maintain the sanctity of life and to help prevent inhumane practices? When do people go from being nothing to being a person and what makes you more qualified to answer that question than a Christian?

Well, I'd go for what we look at when we think of why taking a life is so heinous. The cutting short of a life that had already been experienced, but not fully experienced, suggests sentience is relevant. Why is doing something "inhumane" to a zygote in a lab so reviled?

Alien Overlord wrote:Just because religious thinking holds back some scientific research doesn't make religion responsible for people "suffering in deathbeds." While I'm not apt to share details about my own life, I will say that I have more reason than most to desire advancements in medical technology which might have saved lost loved ones-however to blame religion for those losses is indicative of someone seeking out a scapegoat, as though we shouldn't have religion to at least put our worst excesses into check.

Why do we need it? Why do you so mistrust the judgment of your fellow human beings, unless they were ones from centuries ago who knew nothing of human nature when they wrote what they wrote?

Alien Overlord wrote:There are also atheists which oppose stem-cell research based off of ethical concerns

Not many of them. Certainly not enough to swing the balance of a federal election.

Also, would they even oppose it, if it weren't for the mainstreaming of said opposition to it by the religious?

Lady Victory wrote:

GuessTheAltAccount wrote:Care to address the last paragraph recently edited into the OP, then?

Norway is offended that you're ignorant of it's existence.

You were saying?

GuessTheAltAccount wrote:

Lady Victory wrote:
Norway is offended that you're ignorant of it's existence.

You were saying?

There's no chance that map is accurate. Everything I've heard about Norwegians says they're fairly devout Christians. They literally have a state church and had blasphemy laws as late as the 70s.

GuessTheAltAccount wrote:

Lady Victory wrote:
Norway is offended that you're ignorant of it's existence.

You were saying?

Does anyone genuinely think Somalia and Libya are gonna be anything lower than “more religious”?

The Rich Port wrote:People who are actually progressive as opposed to being pseudo-fascist would not advocate for Trump unless they're also dishonest. Trump is not at all progressive in any way.

That's not the point. The point is that Christians who are otherwise progressive, and/or progressives of other or no religions who sugar-coat Christianity to avoid offending progressive Christians, are legitimizing its continued popularity, paving the way in precedent set by ignoring contradictions for other Trumps.

The Rich Port wrote:Which, yeah, while that happens... People also do that with religion. Unfortunately, human beings are also imperfect. That doesn't mean they deserve to be tyrannized or terrorized and it's no excuse for either China or Russia to actively discourage religion.

I already called out your strawman. Please stop invoking it.

Lady Victory wrote:

GuessTheAltAccount wrote:

You were saying?

There's no chance that map is accurate. Everything I've heard about Norwegians says they're fairly devout Christians. They literally have a state church and had blasphemy laws as late as the 70s.

Yeah, and England has a fake monarchy. Doesn't mean they task that fake monarchy with ruling England like they used to.

It's based on surveys of respondents on the importance of religion in their lives. Can surveys be lied to? Absolutely! But you don't get to take respondents at their word for who they're going to vote for no matter how often they've lied before, and then turn around and assume they're only pretending not to be religious. (At the very least, that's a form of Christianity at odds with the 10 commandments.)

Specific religions can be responsible for specific events, but it can’t be blamed for everything. Nobody needs religion to be a dick, it’s just used as an excuse.

GuessTheAltAccount wrote:

Lady Victory wrote:
There's no chance that map is accurate. Everything I've heard about Norwegians says they're fairly devout Christians. They literally have a state church and had blasphemy laws as late as the 70s.

Yeah, and England has a fake monarchy. Doesn't mean they task that fake monarchy with ruling England like they used to.

It's based on surveys of respondents on the importance of religion in their lives. Can surveys be lied to? Absolutely! But you don't get to take respondents at their word for who they're going to vote for no matter how often they've lied before, and then turn around and assume they're only pretending not to be religious. (At the very least, that's a form of Christianity at odds with the 10 commandments.)

The problem with surveys is not everyone participates, and the participants never include a majority of the population for that reason. Nobody gives a shit about surveys.

And even if religion doesn't play a "big role" (which is such vague terminology it can mean virtually anything or nothing at all) in their personal lives, that doesn't mean they aren't religious.

it certainly can't be blamed for you being a retard

Lady Victory wrote:

GuessTheAltAccount wrote:Yeah, and England has a fake monarchy. Doesn't mean they task that fake monarchy with ruling England like they used to.

It's based on surveys of respondents on the importance of religion in their lives. Can surveys be lied to? Absolutely! But you don't get to take respondents at their word for who they're going to vote for no matter how often they've lied before, and then turn around and assume they're only pretending not to be religious. (At the very least, that's a form of Christianity at odds with the 10 commandments.)

The problem with surveys is not everyone participates, and the participants never include a majority of the population for that reason. Nobody gives a shit about surveys.

And even if religion doesn't play a "big role" (which is such vague terminology it can mean virtually anything or nothing at all) in their personal lives, that doesn't mean they aren't religious.

Well, right now, the evidence, however weak, points in the general direction of them being not AS religious as Americans. Or at least not as open/vocal about it.

And that's part and parcel of the general trend, isn't it? The deep south is even more religious than the rest of the USA and was even more prone to supporting Trump.

The alternative is to assume they're progressive not in spite of whatever religiosity they may have, but because of it. In which case, please feel free to propose a plan to make that kind of progressive Christianity the mainstream of Christianity in America, as opposed to the kind of Evangelicalism typically preached.

Until then, I will presume a book that tells readers what born sinners we are and holds itself up as the only way out is what sets the stage for receptiveness to comparably cult-like messaging from Trump.

GuessTheAltAccount wrote:

The Rich Port wrote:People who are actually progressive as opposed to being pseudo-fascist would not advocate for Trump unless they're also dishonest. Trump is not at all progressive in any way.

That's not the point. The point is that Christians who are otherwise progressive, and/or progressives of other or no religions who sugar-coat Christianity to avoid offending progressive Christians, are legitimizing its continued popularity, paving the way in precedent set by ignoring contradictions for other Trumps.

The Rich Port wrote:Which, yeah, while that happens... People also do that with religion. Unfortunately, human beings are also imperfect. That doesn't mean they deserve to be tyrannized or terrorized and it's no excuse for either China or Russia to actively discourage religion.

I already called out your strawman. Please stop invoking it.

Which yes, in extremely uncertain terms that are really hard to ponder, you're implying that that is inherently bad for practitioners when there's no evidence of it being inherently bad.

The Catholic Church and several Orthodox Jews might have hidden pedophiles but it wasn't because they were just Christian or Jewish. Hierarchical fascists? Probably, but being a fascist has nothing inherently to do with religion.

If we take the perspective that a religious faith cannot ever be held responsible for the actions of its adherents because human nature will out itself regardless of what particular faith horrible people give as justification for their actions, then I will remind you all of that the next time you want to blame some secular faith like, oh, white supremacist nationalism or Stalinist Communism for the misdeeds of their adherents.

After all, why should a faith be treated differently just because it happens to be nonreligious in nature? An excuse that works for one ought to work for all, hmm?

So if religion is the root of all problems OP..... How do you think we should solve this problem hmmm?

Northern Socialist Council Republics wrote:If we take the perspective that a religious faith cannot ever be held responsible for the actions of its adherents because human nature will out itself regardless of what particular faith horrible people give as justification for their actions, then I will remind people of that the next time people want to blame some secular faith like, oh, white supremacist nationalism or Stalinist Communism for the misdeeds of their adherents.

After all, why should a faith be treated differently just because it happens to be nonreligious in nature? An excuse that works for one ought to work for all, hmm?

Nobody is arguing that religion can't be problematic.

I'm not saying it can't happen, but it doesn't ALWAYS happen.

It's on a case by case basis. Some people are not a part of organized religion... Like me.

My religion advocates progressivism and decries fascism and conservatism. I'm mostly a Daoist but that's ignoring the fact that I don't subscribe to absolutely everything Daoism "prescribes" (if you can call it that, because that's the whole point of the Dao but anyway).

Emphasis on the word INHERENT.

I would argue that Stalinist communism (AKA just dressed up hierarchical fascism) and white supremacist nationalism are inherent. There's very little of those ideologies that isn't toxic.

Just-An-Illusion wrote:So if religion is the root of all problems OP..... How do you think we should solve this problem hmmm?

Not the root, just a contributing factor to many of them.

As for proposed solutions, please refer to this.

The Rich Port wrote:

Northern Socialist Council Republics wrote:If we take the perspective that a religious faith cannot ever be held responsible for the actions of its adherents because human nature will out itself regardless of what particular faith horrible people give as justification for their actions, then I will remind people of that the next time people want to blame some secular faith like, oh, white supremacist nationalism or Stalinist Communism for the misdeeds of their adherents.

After all, why should a faith be treated differently just because it happens to be nonreligious in nature? An excuse that works for one ought to work for all, hmm?

Nobody is arguing that religion can't be problematic.

I'm not saying it can't happen, but it doesn't ALWAYS happen.

It's on a case by case basis. Some people are not a part of organized religion... Like me.

My religion advocates progressivism and decries fascism and conservatism. I'm mostly a Daoist but that's ignoring the fact that I don't subscribe to absolutely everything Daoism "prescribes" (if you can call it that, because that's the whole point of the Dao but anyway).

Emphasis on the word INHERENT.

I would argue that Stalinist communism (AKA just dressed up hierarchical fascism) and white supremacist nationalism are inherent. There's very little of those ideologies that isn't toxic.

Telling people they're born sinners and that accepting the entirety of a book's message hook, line and sinker is the only way out is pretty damn toxic.

The Rich Port wrote:I would argue that Stalinist communism (AKA just dressed up hierarchical fascism) and white supremacist nationalism are inherent. There's very little of those ideologies that isn't toxic.

I don’t know know enough about Hinduism to make an intelligent comment about it.

Of the other four major world religions (Christianity, Confucianism, Buddhism, and Islam), I’d argue that all of those... well, to use your own words, “there’s very little of those ideologies that isn’t toxic.”

Northern Socialist Council Republics wrote:

The Rich Port wrote:I would argue that Stalinist communism (AKA just dressed up hierarchical fascism) and white supremacist nationalism are inherent. There's very little of those ideologies that isn't toxic.

I don’t know know enough about Hinduism to make an intelligent comment about it.

Of the other four major world religions (Christianity, Confucianism, Buddhism, and Islam), I’d argue that all of those... well, to use your own words, “there’s very little of those ideologies that isn’t toxic.”

I don't think you know much about any religion, then.

Also, there's a huge difference between hierarchical fascism (a facet of conservative thinking and pseduo-fascism) and the caste system (which yes, it's toxic, but hey, you don't know much about it).

Like, I don't understand why you're fighting me on this, I agree that religions should be policed for toxicity but you also can't just ban religion entirely, it's socially impossible and legislatively difficult to enforce, as the Chinese and Russians eventually figured out.

And Alt's suggestions are ridiculously vague and unconstructive... Maybe help us out here then.

Lady Victory wrote:Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick is it really so hard for you to just let people believe in a force greater than everything else in the universe without feeling the need to "own" them?

Religion, like virtually everything else in the world, is merely a scapegoat for evil-doers to justify their villainous behavior. Take it away and they'll just find a new smokescreen to hide behind. Removing religion from society won't make everything magically better; it'll be the same shit it's always been, just a different excuse used to justify doing whatever they feel needs to be justified. If you believe otherwise then you are sorely unfamiliar with human nature.

aha yes Lady Victory, own this anti-theist. they'll need some copium when you're done with them.

The Rich Port wrote:Like, I don't understand why you're fighting me on this, I agree that religions should be policed for toxicity but you also can't just ban religion entirely, it's socially impossible and legislatively difficult to enforce, as the Chinese and Russians eventually figured out.

And Alt's suggestions are ridiculously vague and unconstructive... Maybe help us out here then.

The biggest point of contention I have with religious pluralists with regards concrete policy is that I believe the State has the privilege and obligation to protect children from the religious faiths of their parents and community, through (to name just one example) an explicitly nonreligious public education system. Otherwise, I’m broadly in agreement that there should be a pluralist society in which religious faith is an accepted facet of public life.

But just because I’m in broad agreement with regards policy doesn’t mean I agree with your reasons why.