NationStates

When you look at the election of Donald Trump, it was a jarring contrast with prior variants of conservatism.

Conservatism used to be known for "Putin, you need to get out of Ukraine." Now it's known for "Putin, you can stay in Ukraine as long as you dig up dirt on our opponents while you're there."

Conservatism used to be known for worshipping capitalism. Now it carves out an exception for international trade.

Conservatism used to be known for fawning over the military. Now it fawns over people who call soldiers suckers and losers.

For an ideology whose supposed namesake is tradition, it sure doesn't seem to hold onto it. (Not that tradition was ever definable in the first place; what if the traditions of our medieval ancestors are at odds with our evolutionary ones?)

But if there is one thing modern conservatism has in common with old-timey conservatism, it's religion. When Trump forced those protesters out of the way, it was to make way for a photo op at a church across the street. He repeatedly invoked "God" in his speeches. People can try to No True Scotsman their way out of this all they like, but so long as the Bible contradicts itself, it leaves room for interpretation that scum like Trump can fit through. And with voters primed by religion for unreason, they won't care if his ideas don't stand up to scrutiny. Religion didn't either, and disregarding that set a precedent. Trump will never live down getting half a million Americans killed with his coronavirus policies. But who knows how many people religion killed with its opposition to stem cell research?

By comparison, you don't need religion to defend their polar opposite in the kinds of Nordic policies Sanders-types advocate. We know this because Nordic countries are less religious than the USA.

So when you hear of people trying to reconcile said Nordic policies with religion, emotionally I can't help but find it endearing, but intellectually I wonder if that may be doing progressive causes more harm than good. Would that not buy religion undue goodwill, delaying the day society casts aside religion altogether, prolonging religion's toxic continued existence and allowing religion to continue to put Trump-types in office?

You realize the idea of welfare states was basically created by conservative Christian Prussian aristocrats who were suspicious of capitalism's effects on society, right?

I'm compelled to disagree with OP in the following:

And with voters primed by religion for unreason, they won't care if his ideas don't stand up to scrutiny. Religion didn't either, and disregarding that set a precedent.

I understand it's apparently become the popular thing to blame religion for all the problems in modern society, but this is just strange. People were not "primed by religion for unreason." This unreasonableness is caused by rabid partisanship and tribalism. This whole mentality of "my side, right or wrong, truth be damned," neither originated with religion nor will it disappear if religion magically vanished off of the face of the Earth.

This also totally disregards the idea that perhaps, religion actually does stand up to scrutiny in the eyes of some people, and that not every religious person feels the need to put their head in the sand to preserve their beliefs.

Trump will never live down getting half a million Americans killed with his coronavirus policies. But who knows how many people religion killed with its opposition to stem cell research?

This is a transition to what seems like a tangentially related issue at best. Regardless, it seems that stem cell research has been steadily progressing despite any related controversy, so I would say "probably not that many." Also, it's not as if people's objection to these things comes solely from religion, just as not every pro-life objection raised stems from religion either.

By comparison, you don't need religion to defend their polar opposite in the kinds of Nordic policies Sanders-types advocate. We know this because Nordic countries are less religious than the USA.

Quite frankly, you didn't really need religion to defend Trump either. All you needed was the word of what Trump said, because these people who support him have a blind loyalty to him. I would go as far as to say that his supporters would still be trying to find a way to defend him had he taken a machine gun and massacred a Church congregation.

Would that not buy religion undue goodwill, delaying the day society casts aside religion altogether, prolonging religion's toxic continued existence and allowing religion to continue to put Trump-types in office?

This concern is based on the assumption that all religion is fundamentally bad and can never help society in any way. And again, we most definitely did not need religion to put Trump in office. It should speak for itself that much of the right wing has begun to abandon Christianity in favor of Paganism.

Punished UMN wrote:You realize the idea of welfare states was basically created by conservative Christian Prussian aristocrats who were suspicious of capitalism's effects on society, right?

Doesn't mean Christianity should be given the credit. If they hadn't invented the concept, someone else would.

. . .

Muzehnaya wrote:I understand it's apparently become the popular thing to blame religion for all the problems in modern society, but this is just strange. People were not "primed by religion for unreason." This unreasonableness is caused by rabid partisanship and tribalism.

And yet, you see less of it in societies that are less religious. Explain that.

Muzehnaya wrote:This is a transition to what seems like a tangentially related issue at best. Regardless, it seems that stem cell research has been steadily progressing despite any related controversy

Bush got re-elected on a promise to restrict funding for it. The contributions of one of the wealthiest countries in the world were delayed by spineless pandering to misguided opposition to it.

Muzehnaya wrote:Also, it's not as if people's objection to these things comes solely from religion, just as not every pro-life objection raised stems from religion either.

Yeah, maybe a few people managed to be convinced of this "life begins at conception" BS through pseudo-secular-sounding talking points. But that leaves behind the question of who had what incentives to peddle these talking points in the first place. Who benefits from the continued existence of cancer or AIDS or stuff like that? Maybe the pharmaceutical industry that makes a profit off selling medications. But people are willing to fight against big pharma's interests in other contexts (especially contexts in which people listen to leaders who follow Scandinavia's example, for that matter). What drives them to play into big pharma's hands in this one? It's not like the issue of abortion where the fetus, however superficially, "looks" like an infant. A zygote doesn't even look like one, so there is no transparently-irrational superficial resemblance to motivate them.

If the idea were to have an excuse to cling to "life begins at conception" BS just as an excuse to oppose abortion, what possible incentive is there to stick to that excuse instead of passing the torch to whoever comes up with a new one that doesn't hurt cancer and AIDS patients in the process?

Muzehnaya wrote:Quite frankly, you didn't really need religion to defend Trump either. All you needed was the word of what Trump said, because these people who support him have a blind loyalty to him. I would go as far as to say that his supporters would still be trying to find a way to defend him had he taken a machine gun and massacred a Church congregation.

Well, you have Catholics and Protestants killing each other in Northern Ireland, so at best, Christianity did nothing to remedy that. And might have exacerbated it.

Meanwhile, religious districts are Trump districts. Does this strike you as a coincidence?

Muzehnaya wrote:It should speak for itself that much of the right wing has begun to abandon Christianity in favor of Paganism.

Well, it doesn't. You're going to need to be a bit more specific than that.

I'm not sure why you have this obsession with stem cell research considering most stem cell research does not involve embryonic stem cells and further with induced pluripotent stem cells there really isn't much of a need for embryonic stem cells (other than cost for the time being), which religious figures aren't opposed to. I mean research is already being done on inducing totipotency.

>Linking to a Cracked article
Are we back in 2012?

Immortan Khan wrote:I'm not sure why you have this obsession with stem cell research considering most stem cell research does not involve embryonic stem cells and further with induced pluripotent stem cells there really isn't much of a need for embryonic stem cells (other than cost for the time being), which religious figures aren't opposed to. I mean research is already being done on inducing totipotency.

And they wouldn't have needed to waste time on them if the church would let them have their embryonic ones in the fist place. Non-embryonic stem cells are a supplement for embryonic ones, not a substitute. They are each useful for different things.

How much time could have been saved if, instead of wasting it "inducing pluripotency" to pander to misguided opposition to this sort of thing, they were to use cells that were already pluripotent? The fact remains that this idiotic "life begins at conception" narrative put insentient zygotes over sentient human beings, costing lives among the latter.

Homophobia could be blamed on evolutionary impulses, opposition to condom use could be blamed on envy of others' sex lives (though I'm skeptical since my own falling for fearmongering about guys "imitating" the "bad boys" who supposedly "get girls" was mistaken for that too) but cancer patients didn't catch their disease through promiscuity.

GuessTheAltAccount wrote:

Punished UMN wrote:You realize the idea of welfare states was basically created by conservative Christian Prussian aristocrats who were suspicious of capitalism's effects on society, right?

Doesn't mean Christianity should be given the credit. If they hadn't invented the concept, someone else would.

. . .

What does this even mean? All it is is inconvenient for you to admit that the ideology you are railing against is also the one primarily responsible for a humanist view of the world that puts the dignity of persons ahead of other things.

GuessTheAltAccount wrote:And they wouldn't have needed to waste time on them if the church would let them have their embryonic ones in the fist place.

I mean research would have been done on it regardless because it's far easier to take someone's own cells with their own genetic code and use that for therapies.

Non-embryonic stem cells are a supplement for embryonic ones, not a substitute. They are each useful for different things.

I mean they are completely capable of being substitutes.

The fact remains that this idiotic "life begins at conception" narrative put insentient zygotes over sentient human beings, costing lives among the latter.

I mean, life does begin at conception. That's not a debate, biologically speaking. The debate is when personhood begins (well sometimes, people in favour of abortion up to the last second can't really be said to be arguing about personhood).

Homophobia could be blamed on evolutionary impulses, opposition to condom use could be blamed on envy of others' sex lives (though I'm skeptical since my own falling for fearmongering about guys "imitating" the "bad boys" who supposedly "get girls" was mistaken for that too) but cancer patients didn't catch their disease through promiscuity.

This is a really bad attempt to guilt trip given the support various religious scholars have given to medical research over the centuries.

Punished UMN wrote:

GuessTheAltAccount wrote:Doesn't mean Christianity should be given the credit. If they hadn't invented the concept, someone else would.

. . .

What does this even mean? All it is is inconvenient for you to admit that the ideology you are railing against is also the one primarily responsible for a humanist view of the world that puts the dignity of persons ahead of other things.

Are you implying we'd all be a bunch of cold, heartless scumbags who don't care about each other's dignity without religion? Give me a break. Scandinavia is more peaceful than the USA with less religion. Places that are in between on the former (eg. Canada, Australia, much of Europe, etc...) are in between on religion.

More likely, religion stole the credit for the idea of putting the dignity of persons ahead of other things, just like it did with everything from Yule to the virgin birth story.

GuessTheAltAccount wrote:

Punished UMN wrote:What does this even mean? All it is is inconvenient for you to admit that the ideology you are railing against is also the one primarily responsible for a humanist view of the world that puts the dignity of persons ahead of other things.

Are you implying we'd all be a bunch of cold, heartless scumbags who don't care about each other's dignity without religion? Give me a break. Scandinavia is more peaceful than the USA with less religion. Places that are in between on the former (eg. Canada, Australia, much of Europe, etc...) are in between on religion.

More likely, religion stole the credit for the idea of putting the dignity of persons ahead of other things, just like it did with everything from Yule to the virgin birth story.

Secular humanism is historically accepted to be derived almost entirely from Christian intellectual traditions. Prior to Christianity, few societies valued human life in-itself, the reason we view it as a default today is because we live in a society influenced by over a thousand years of Christian ideological dominance which persists even after secularism.

Immortan Khan wrote:I mean they are completely capable of being substitutes.

By now, maybe. How much progress could have been made if we didn't have to wait on that?

Immortan Khan wrote:I mean, life does begin at conception. That's not a debate, biologically speaking. The debate is when personhood begins (well sometimes, people in favour of abortion up to the last second can't really be said to be arguing about personhood).

If you were paying any attention to what abortion-decriminalizers say, you'd know they believe that third-trimester abortions are usually done for legitimate medical reasons.

And quite frankly, despite them getting a few things about my own motives wrong, somehow I feel compelled to agree with them here anyway. I'd sooner trust the average doctor to show sound judgment on what procedure to perform on a patient than trust the average religious voter to face the fact that the 9-month gestation period was given to humanity not by a loving God buy by cold, unfeeling evolutionary forces that aren't physically capable if caring if some of the mothers (or fetuses themselves!) involved suffer serious complications.

Immortan Khan wrote:This is a really bad attempt to guilt trip given the support various religious scholars have given to medical research over the centuries.

Yeah, and Falwell was known for being "charitable" as well. You know, "charitable" enough to buy enough goodwill to get away with statements like these. What else might religion be willing to do with its ill-gotten goodwill, hmm?

Why not instead outsource this to the public sector, where it can be held to adequate public scrutiny?

Need I remind you that prior to Christianization, the Romans used widespread public murder as a form of mass public entertainment on a scale which hadn't been seen before or since, that the Greeks viewed murdering your own children as a morally acceptable act, that the Phoenicians sacrificed their children to dark gods, and the Norse murdered helpless civilians to steal stuff from them? It was Christian views on human life that put a stop to those ideas. In the 19th and 20th centuries, it was Christians that instituted laws against child labor and vivisection of animals, laws protecting the insane from the death penalty, laws which provided housing for the disabled, etc. while social darwinism and eugenics were the hot thing among atheists. In Germany, it was Christians who instituted retirement pensions and public healthcare under the Kaiser, and in the Russian Empire, it was Christians who put a moratorium on the Death Penalty for most of the country's existence.

Punished UMN wrote:Secular humanism is historically accepted to be derived almost entirely from Christian intellectual traditions.

"Historically accepted" by whom?

Punished UMN wrote:Prior to Christianity, few societies valued human life in-itself

As opposed to during Christianity, when religious authorities were executing people over everything under the sun?

It is the passage of time, not the role of Christianity, that deserves the credit.

Punished UMN wrote:the reason we view it as a default today is because we live in a society influenced by over a thousand years of Christian ideological dominance which persists even after secularism.

How did bonobos come to value each others' lives, then?

Perspectives like yours are a hideous smear not just against atheists, but against theists as well, by taking the rightful credit for their moral goodness away from their own consciences as individuals and falsely attributing it to an ideology that has proven counterproductive to it again and again.

GuessTheAltAccount wrote:

Punished UMN wrote:Secular humanism is historically accepted to be derived almost entirely from Christian intellectual traditions.

"Historically accepted" by whom?

Punished UMN wrote:Prior to Christianity, few societies valued human life in-itself

As opposed to during Christianity, when religious authorities were executing people over everything under the sun?

It is the passage of time, not the role of Christianity, that deserves the credit.

Punished UMN wrote:the reason we view it as a default today is because we live in a society influenced by over a thousand years of Christian ideological dominance which persists even after secularism.

How did bonobos come to value it, then?

Perspectives like yours are a hideous smear not just against atheists, but against theists as well, by taking the rightful credit for their moral goodness away from their own consciences as individuals and falsely attributing it to an ideology that has proven counterproductive to it again and again.

You can look at pretty much any history of philosophy book on humanism to see that Christian theologians were immensely influential in terms of humanist thought.

Executions during the middle ages were actually much lower than under prior regimes such as pagan regimes.

Punished UMN wrote:

GuessTheAltAccount wrote:"Historically accepted" by whom?



As opposed to during Christianity, when religious authorities were executing people over everything under the sun?

It is the passage of time, not the role of Christianity, that deserves the credit.



How did bonobos come to value it, then?

Perspectives like yours are a hideous smear not just against atheists, but against theists as well, by taking the rightful credit for their moral goodness away from their own consciences as individuals and falsely attributing it to an ideology that has proven counterproductive to it again and again.

You can look at pretty much any history of philosophy book on humanism to see that Christian theologians were immensely influential in terms of humanist thought.

Executions during the middle ages were actually much lower than under prior regimes such as pagan regimes.

Which further drives home my point about it is the passage of time, not the role of Christianity, that has been the positive influence. As time passes and society drifts apart from religion, society gets even better than that.

Giving Christianity the credit for something it seized upon at the right moment is ridiculous. It'd be like if someone discovered evolution before Darwin did, and said "see? If it wasn't for me, evolution wouldn't have been discovered!" Only it's actually more like if that person said "and by the way, evolution is a package deal. To accept evolution, you must also accept Trumpism, and be against stem cell research. If you say otherwise, you're with SATAN."

Immortan Khan wrote:>Linking to a Cracked article
Are we back in 2012?

I mean the OP's entire worldview is that of a FreeThoughtBlogs commenter that was decanted out of a cryotube from around then so it fits

Punished UMN wrote:

GuessTheAltAccount wrote:"Historically accepted" by whom?



As opposed to during Christianity, when religious authorities were executing people over everything under the sun?

It is the passage of time, not the role of Christianity, that deserves the credit.



How did bonobos come to value it, then?

Perspectives like yours are a hideous smear not just against atheists, but against theists as well, by taking the rightful credit for their moral goodness away from their own consciences as individuals and falsely attributing it to an ideology that has proven counterproductive to it again and again.

You can look at pretty much any history of philosophy book on humanism to see that Christian theologians were immensely influential in terms of humanist thought.

Executions during the middle ages were actually much lower than under prior regimes such as pagan regimes.

And the Bloody Code was at its height during the Age of "Reason".

Nilokeras wrote:
I mean the OP's entire worldview is that of a FreeThoughtBlogs commenter that was decanted out of a cryotube from around then so it fits

Fair.

GuessTheAltAccount wrote:Giving Christianity the credit for something it seized upon at the right moment is ridiculous. It'd be like if someone discovered evolution before Darwin did, and said "see? If it wasn't for me, evolution wouldn't have been discovered!"

...and he would have gotten credit for it. That's how this works.

GuessTheAltAccount wrote:Which further drives home my point about it is the passage of time,

Time has nothing to do with it. Crime and punishment zig zag between lax and stern over history. The American justice system was significantly more lax in the 70's for example. Murderers were being let out after five years in some cases.

not the role of Christianity, that has been the positive influence.

Are you sure about that?

As time passes and society drifts apart from religion, society gets even better than that.

Once again, time has nothing to do with it. There were fewer crimes punishable by death during Anglo-Saxon England and Norman England than there were during the 17th and 18th centuries.

Giving Christianity the credit for something it seized upon at the right moment is ridiculous. It'd be like if someone discovered evolution before Darwin did, and said "see? If it wasn't for me, evolution wouldn't have been discovered!" Only it's actually more like if that person said "and by the way, evolution is a package deal.

Are you sure that's a given? The concept of a round Earth had to be brought into China during the 17th century, one of the most advanced empires in the world. They thought the earth was flat until then. Concepts and invention that seem like common sense to us is only because we were born into them. The stirrup wasn't invented for thousands of years after humans had begun riding horses. Three crop rotation is something you don't see until something like 7000 years after the start of agriculture.

To accept evolution, you must also accept Trumpism, and be against stem cell research. If you say otherwise, you're with SATAN."

What?

consider the idea that maybe you are wrong about what conservatism actually cared about

Muh Whig History.

GuessTheAltAccount wrote:

Punished UMN wrote:You can look at pretty much any history of philosophy book on humanism to see that Christian theologians were immensely influential in terms of humanist thought.

Executions during the middle ages were actually much lower than under prior regimes such as pagan regimes.

Which further drives home my point about it is the passage of time, not the role of Christianity, that has been the positive influence. As time passes and society drifts apart from religion, society gets even better than that.

Giving Christianity the credit for something it seized upon at the right moment is ridiculous. It'd be like if someone discovered evolution before Darwin did, and said "see? If it wasn't for me, evolution wouldn't have been discovered!" Only it's actually more like if that person said "and by the way, evolution is a package deal. To accept evolution, you must also accept Trumpism, and be against stem cell research. If you say otherwise, you're with SATAN."

The passage of time isn't a social movement that influences what people think. I'm sorry you don't have a way to cope with that your entire worldview is based on a simplified history of the United States 1950-Present. I think it's pretty telling that your idea of "what conservatism used to be" is less than 10 years ago.

Title had me at something else. Yet the OP had me at another. This is basically a strike at religion. Not conservatism.

You seem fond of Scandinavia. Yes, its true its one of the safest and most peaceful places on Earth. But how you are saying all this, implies that Scandinavia is perfect. I mean lets not forget the non-Religious Far-Right members that Scandinavia has produced in recent years. Not to mention the growing support for it. Scandinavia being Scandinavia, as you said. Its very non-Religious. Unlike the US where the far-right is mostly Christian. In Scandinavia its mostly Atheists and Anti-theists. And ignoring the rise of far-right here isnt going to help.

GuessTheAltAccount wrote:When you look at the election of Donald Trump, it was a jarring contrast with prior variants of conservatism.

Conservatism used to be known for "Putin, you need to get out of Ukraine." Now it's known for "Putin, you can stay in Ukraine as long as you dig up dirt on our opponents while you're there."

Conservatism used to be known for worshipping capitalism. Now it carves out an exception for international trade.

Conservatism used to be known for fawning over the military. Now it fawns over people who call soldiers suckers and losers.

For an ideology whose supposed namesake is tradition, it sure doesn't seem to hold onto it. (Not that tradition was ever definable in the first place; what if the traditions of our medieval ancestors are at odds with our evolutionary ones?)

But if there is one thing modern conservatism has in common with old-timey conservatism, it's religion. When Trump forced those protesters out of the way, it was to make way for a photo op at a church across the street. He repeatedly invoked "God" in his speeches. People can try to No True Scotsman their way out of this all they like, but so long as the Bible contradicts itself, it leaves room for interpretation that scum like Trump can fit through. And with voters primed by religion for unreason, they won't care if his ideas don't stand up to scrutiny. Religion didn't either, and disregarding that set a precedent. Trump will never live down getting half a million Americans killed with his coronavirus policies. But who knows how many people religion killed with its opposition to stem cell research?

By comparison, you don't need religion to defend their polar opposite in the kinds of Nordic policies Sanders-types advocate. We know this because Nordic countries are less religious than the USA.

So when you hear of people trying to reconcile said Nordic policies with religion, emotionally I can't help but find it endearing, but intellectually I wonder if that may be doing progressive causes more harm than good. Would that not buy religion undue goodwill, delaying the day society casts aside religion altogether, prolonging religion's toxic continued existence and allowing religion to continue to put Trump-types in office?

The state of American Progressive christianty and the whole rise of Trumpism is directly a result of American Culture, its blind maxim of Exceptionalism, Corporate Personhood, lack of Tradition and inherent Corruption.

Its notable that the more moderate forms of traditional protestant/presbytarian christianity had their origins in Europe