One major problem with nationalism is the same problem that plagues religion....it's a powerful shortcut just as easy to use maliciously as for good. Religion is a shortcut for morality...you...
One major problem with nationalism is the same problem that plagues religion....it's a powerful shortcut just as easy to use maliciously as for good.
Religion is a shortcut for morality...you don't need to contemplate the moral consequences because your religous leader does it for you and spits out the result (abortion is wrong, gays are evil, etc).
Nationalism is a shortcut for unity. Bolstering the strength of tribalistic, arbitrary boundaries is antithetical to building empathy at a global scale, which is desperately needed so long as international trade exists. Yes, it might have helped stopped COVID faster...but that's also how you get Brexit and withdrawing from the Paris Climate Accords.
Those shortcuts are powerful because they are easily deeply ingrained and hard to overcome, because tribalism is a somewhat primal instinct. But much of the betterment of humanity is predicated on taming our primal instincts, not fostering them. It's one reason I consider the "Capitalism is good because it taps into natural human greed for productivity" an outdated and harmful justification.... we'll never do better if we keep fostering greed and calling it a good thing.
And once that hard to remove shortcut is there, it's simple enough for anyone with sufficient influence to tap into it and guide the tribe into a bad place.
This is simply balling up all of "religion" into a very reductive framework for how specific groups of right wing fundamentalists operate. The vast majority of religious people and religious...
Religion is a shortcut for morality...you don't need to contemplate the moral consequences because your religous leader does it for you and spits out the result (abortion is wrong, gays are evil, etc).
This is simply balling up all of "religion" into a very reductive framework for how specific groups of right wing fundamentalists operate. The vast majority of religious people and religious practitioners disagree with each other and their clergy basically all the time and approaching religious practice as a checklist of "good and bad" things to do has generally been derided by religious thinkers going back forever.
Those shortcuts are powerful because they are easily deeply ingrained and hard to overcome, because tribalism is a somewhat primal instinct. But much of the betterment of humanity is predicated on taming our primal instincts, not fostering them.
If your definition of progress or "betterment" is going to focus on undoing humanity I think you're going to be setting yourself up for failure. Most people don't want to be eroding their basic humanity they want to experience it more richly. They are definitely not going to want to sacrifice it on some amorphously goalless sense of "progress" for the species as a whole, as dictated to them by ideologically motivated moralizers, to their detriment of the values they immediately hold dear.
I get that, but that's also because that reductive framework applies to many, many, many religions past and present, which is very useful when talking in the abstract about religion and not any...
This is simply balling up all of "religion" into a very reductive framework for how specific groups of right wing fundamentalists operate. The vast majority of religious people and religious practitioners disagree with each other and their clergy basically all the time and approaching religious practice as a checklist of "good and bad" things to do has generally been derided by religious thinkers going back forever.
I get that, but that's also because that reductive framework applies to many, many, many religions past and present, which is very useful when talking in the abstract about religion and not any particular sect. I always judge a religion (and practitioners) by how the believers treat the non-believers (and deserters), and most religions around the world do not have a good track record there. They do better in secular states, where there is a clear separation between government authority and religious authority. Which is part of why I am terrified of the de-secularization of the US government. But even many of the most tolerant religious folks are immediately distrusting of atheists and are perfectly happy to see them ostracized from their communities.
If you doubt this, go to any random public church fundraiser sometime, strike up some smalltalk, then mention casually how you abandoned your faith and you won't be raising your children with God in their life. See how fast you get ghosted or the conversation steers to "bringing you back on the right path."
Most people don't want to be eroding their basic humanity they want to experience it more richly
Perhaps an example is in order. Killing someone whom punches you in the face is a perfectly natural primal instinct. It is not conducive to maintaining a co-operative civil society. Taming that primal urge is required in order to stop the cycle of violence.
When I say taming, I'm saying we have to acknowledge our base instinct and evaluate the positive and negative aspects. It is hypothetically what separates us from the animals. Punishment for crimes is appealing to a primal instinct for retribution, but more and more evidence is being found that rehabilitation is far more effective, despite going against the primal instincts.
They are definitely not going to want to sacrifice it on some amorphously goalless sense of "progress" for the species as a whole, as dictated to them by ideologically motivated moralizers, to their detriment of the values they immediately hold dear.
How do you think the USA got to such the sorry state it is in? From the beginning, the colonization was driven by right-wing puritans whom saw themselves as the moralizers of the world, evidenced by various missionaries and crusades. Most of the right-wing backwardness is attributable to feeling that it's OK to impose your morals on others, regardless of theirs.
This is just not true. Harmonious interaction between members of different religious communities is the norm across human history. Violence is the exception and generally coincides with many of...
I get that, but that's also because that reductive framework applies to many, many, many religions past and present, which is very useful when talking in the abstract about religion and not any particular sect. I always judge a religion (and practitioners) by how the believers treat the non-believers (and deserters), and most religions around the world do not have a good track record there.
This is just not true. Harmonious interaction between members of different religious communities is the norm across human history. Violence is the exception and generally coincides with many of the more typical reasons for political violence. Don't confuse how states treat each other and their subjects with what regular people do.
They do better in secular states, where there is a clear separation between government authority and religious authority.
The divide between "secular" and "religious" spheres itself assumes a Christian (and specifically Protestant) conception of what religions are, how they work, and the role of religion in peoples' lives. It's foreign to Islamic societies where the "religion" was a societal organizing principle, or Dharmic societies where peoples' "religions" were customary traditions and ways of life among people. States here maintained social harmony by not showing favoritism to any specific sect or deity but, since they were polytheists who were more concerned with orthopraxy than orthodoxy, it would not have occurred to them to establish a state religion for everyone who lives under them. The Kingdom/state would have it's own patron deity and they'd insist you not disrespect it, but this wouldn't get in the way of any person not prioritizing that deity in their practice. It did sometimes come to pass that rulers would disrespect the Gods of conquered groups or disfavored minorities, but that was generally frowned upon.
Killing someone whom punches you in the face is a perfectly natural primal instinct. It is not conducive to maintaining a co-operative civil society. Taming that primal urge is required in order to stop the cycle of violence.
You're creating a dichotomy between nature and society that doesn't exist. Compassion and not wanting to hurt one another are also natural, primal instincts. These instincts are in tension with one another which is where the entire drive to build civilization and develop customary social norms comes from. One of the things they focus on in hand-to-hand fighting and paracombatives training is to shut out the part of your brain that will make you pull your punches in a fight. People have a natural instinct to not hit each other at 100% unless they're in full-on adrenaline mode. This is part of why karate classes make you break boards, so you train yourself into the muscle memory of just hitting as hard as you can.
From the beginning, the colonization was driven by right-wing puritans whom saw themselves as the moralizers of the world, evidenced by various missionaries and crusades. Most of the right-wing backwardness is attributable to feeling that it's OK to impose your morals on others, regardless of theirs.
The moralizing puritans were also at the forefront of the abolition and women's suffrage movements so you win some, you lose some. Social issues throughout history do not map cleanly onto modern left/right categories.
I could make the same statement about atheism. I definitely could have drawn similarities with atheism in 2008-2014. I avoided mentioning my beliefs in public or online because of the...
If you doubt this, go to any random public church fundraiser sometime, strike up some smalltalk, then mention casually how you abandoned your faith and you won't be raising your children with God in their life. See how fast you get ghosted or the conversation steers to "bringing you back on the right path."
I could make the same statement about atheism. I definitely could have drawn similarities with atheism in 2008-2014. I avoided mentioning my beliefs in public or online because of the condescension or hostility I knew was in store for me if one of those atheists was around. The types who didn't give a shit what my personal beliefs were, the mere fact I believed God could exist was enough to invalidate my opinions on anything and everything. Obviously I wasn't capable of critical thinking; if I was I wouldn't believe in God. Belief in God was seen as an open invitation to call a person slurs and shout at them. I had people tell me at 18 that since I was religious I was going to be a bad parent because I was going to force my poisonous religion down my child's throat. Didn't matter that I didn't plan on having kids. Didn't matter that I think religion should be an individual's choice and children should be introduced to many religions and be supported to follow the one they believe is correct, or to follow none of them if they don't believe. None of it mattered. I was religious therefore I was r*tarded and should be banned from "procreating" (I will never forget how weird the choice of words always felt). You're right about one thing, the atheists would never ghost me. They'd be friends with me and then roll their eyes and make mean-spirited jabs any time my faith came up and then act confused and defensive when I would get pissed at them for mocking me to my face.
Hell, some of the most hateful and exclusionary movements of my lifetime sprang from the atheist community! The new atheist movement on YouTube and Twitter was the blueprint for Gamergate and many of the big New Atheist YouTubers would go on to be major figures in gamergate. Same for the incel community.
My faith is something that has constantly been in flux my whole life. Nothing has ever felt quite right and so I've gone to approximately 12 different churches of various denominations, been atheist, been agnostic, read the Quran and Torah, went to my local Buddist temple and talked about the spiritual side of Buddism. In my experience, Christians will be a bit pushy and try to convert you but once you say no they usually drop it and move on. Atheists usually just try to make me feel like garbage for believing in God and bully me into abandoning my beliefs.
And this is not to say all atheists are big mean bullies and I hate them. I have plenty of atheist friends who are great and aren't like that. However, this comment to me implies that secular folk/atheists are naturally more open and accepting than religious people and I very strongly disagree with that idea.
You will never see this behavior in Jewish or pagan communities because it is only evangelical (small e, not the churches that call themselves Evangelical) religions who do this. You are talking...
go to any random public church fundraiser sometime, strike up some smalltalk, then mention casually how you abandoned your faith and you won't be raising your children with God in their life. See how fast you get ghosted or the conversation steers to "bringing you back on the right path."
You will never see this behavior in Jewish or pagan communities because it is only evangelical (small e, not the churches that call themselves Evangelical) religions who do this. You are talking about Christians and a vocal minority of Muslims.
Never? That is definitely not true. Haredi (ultra-Orthodox) Jewish communities treat apostasy with ostracism, and even still occasionally make use of official censures/excommunication...
Never? That is definitely not true. Haredi (ultra-Orthodox) Jewish communities treat apostasy with ostracism, and even still occasionally make use of official censures/excommunication (Niddui/Herem/Nezifah). And even outside those more strict Jewish communities, social pressures are often applied to wayward adherents. E.g. One of my father's best friends is Jewish (not Orthodox), married a Catholic woman who refused to convert to Judaism, and his family (also not Orthodox) barely talks to him anymore as a result.
It's not just "very extreme Jews" that do it though. My father's friend isn't "extreme" in his religious convictions and neither is the majority of his family. However, breaking from long-standing...
It's not just "very extreme Jews" that do it though. My father's friend isn't "extreme" in his religious convictions and neither is the majority of his family. However, breaking from long-standing traditions (as he did by divorcing then remarrying outside the faith, and as his new wife did by refusing to convert), or even doing something considered taboo, causing those people to experience social pressure to conform, or even ostracization if they don't, isn't a uniquely Christian, Muslim, or even religious thing.
As for how common that behavior is in different religions or cultures, that isn't something I have ever seen statistics or sociological studies on, so I would personally be wary of making any broad generalizations about it. But there is likely an element of that behavior, to varying degrees, in nearly every place and with nearly every group of people though, since IMO it's simply human nature to treat non-conformers differently, and often poorly.
Absolutely! But the specific thing that vord said was: That's not something any Reform or Conservative community I've ever been a part of would find acceptable, and certainly not something any...
social pressure to conform, or even ostracization if they don't, isn't a uniquely Christian, Muslim, or even religious thing.
Absolutely! But the specific thing that vord said was:
go to any random public church fundraiser sometime, strike up some smalltalk, then mention casually how you abandoned your faith and you won't be raising your children with God in their life. See how fast you get ghosted or the conversation steers to "bringing you back on the right path."
That's not something any Reform or Conservative community I've ever been a part of would find acceptable, and certainly not something any pagan I've ever met would support. It's a specific kind of social pressure that is, in my opinion, more pernicious than just "peer pressure" - and nearly unique to evangelical religions, which Judaism is explicitly not supposed to be.
Huh? Getting ghosted after failing to bring him and his wife "back on the right path" (by constantly trying to convince him not to marry her unless she converted, and convince her to convert) is...
Huh? Getting ghosted after failing to bring him and his wife "back on the right path" (by constantly trying to convince him not to marry her unless she converted, and convince her to convert) is exactly what happened to my father's friend. And I would call that more than just your garden variety peer pressure. So I don't understand the distinction you're trying to make here. Jewish people, regardless of how devout or not they are, aren't immune from the more extreme forms of ostracization seen in other religions and cultures when traditions are broken. Prevalence of that behavior is a different matter, but again, I would still be hesitant to make a blanket conclusion about it "never" happening in the Jewish faith, or only happening at the more extreme end spectrum, especially since my father's friend experienced it first hand.
I don't think this kind of abuse of religion is exclusive to the right wing fundamentalist Christian movement. Religion has been used this way for thousands of years. Any time a religion...
I don't think this kind of abuse of religion is exclusive to the right wing fundamentalist Christian movement. Religion has been used this way for thousands of years. Any time a religion prescribes a power structure, the people at the top of said structure almost invariably become corrupt at some point.
The concept outlined here reminds me of one of my favorite ideas, from Dwight D. Eisenhower's farewell speech: He was referring to an end to the then only budding Cold War freeing up the resources...
The concept outlined here reminds me of one of my favorite ideas, from Dwight D. Eisenhower's farewell speech:
The fruit of success in all these tasks would present the world with the greatest task—and the greatest opportunity—of all. It is this: the dedication of the energies, the resources, and the imaginations of all peaceful nations to a new kind of war. This would be a declared, total war, not upon any human enemy, but upon the brute forces of poverty and need.
He was referring to an end to the then only budding Cold War freeing up the resources needed to take care of the world's people, but I think we still have the same opportunity today, if we are willing to take it.
And if Kennedy hadn't been assassinated, his wish might have come to fruition. I too hope we can build the political will to end poverty, but too many still see it as a "necessary evil" to insure...
And if Kennedy hadn't been assassinated, his wish might have come to fruition.
I too hope we can build the political will to end poverty, but too many still see it as a "necessary evil" to insure we still have janitors, garbage collectors, and miners.
You've never talked to anybody who says "Poor people are only poor because they choose to be poor" or "If we had social safety nets, nobody would ever work demeaning jobs, so we need to keep...
You've never talked to anybody who says "Poor people are only poor because they choose to be poor" or "If we had social safety nets, nobody would ever work demeaning jobs, so we need to keep people on the brink of homelessness so they get done"?
Lucky. The mentality is everywhere, even in liberal spaces. Though most commonly it's used as justification to eliminate social safety nets and avoid paying living wages.
To me this is a far cry from people thinking poverty is required, and enforced, so that the garbage gets cleaned up. I don't subscribe to this kind of conspiratorial thinking. It assumes far too...
"Poor people are only poor because they choose to be poor" or "If we had social safety nets, nobody would ever work demeaning jobs, so we need to keep people on the brink of homelessness so they get done"
To me this is a far cry from people thinking poverty is required, and enforced, so that the garbage gets cleaned up. I don't subscribe to this kind of conspiratorial thinking. It assumes far too much. I can see that it's popular, though.
Your quotes confuse conspiracy with the argument that money motivates people to work. Which is the problem that I'm arguing against.
Using any razor here, my reasoning is that reducing social support frameworks is largely motivated by the greed of the "have's". Less money for social security means more money for landowners/business owners/corporations. This is also a factor motivating the adoption of automation.
Not sure where you're getting conspiracy from. I'm merely stating that many people (on both sides of the aisle) see not just that money motivates people to work, but that menial jobs won't be done...
Not sure where you're getting conspiracy from. I'm merely stating that many people (on both sides of the aisle) see not just that money motivates people to work, but that menial jobs won't be done without threat of poverty. Of course, many of these menial jobs are essential. The idea that we pay more for those jobs instead of relying on threat of poverty is often considered unpalatable for some reason.
And yes, the root and motivations may come from the "haves," but there are massive propaganda networks which propagate that motivation to everyone else, thus making elimination of poverty a difficult political issue to this day.
I'm no political scientist, but I'm not sure the things he wants can only be achieved by nationalism, or even that nationalism will automatically bring those things. Believing your country is the...
I'm no political scientist, but I'm not sure the things he wants can only be achieved by nationalism, or even that nationalism will automatically bring those things.
Believing your country is the best doesn't mean you will support the good of your country or your fellow countrymen, as has been clearly proven the last few years.
Beyond this, there has been a lot of rhetoric that people "on the other side" of the political spectrum aren't "real Americans", and it goes so far as to claim that they actively seek to destroy America. If you think a group within your country isn't really a part of your country, your nationalism and defensive or even aggressive behavior are going to be turned towards those people.
I'm a recovering Nationalist. I left it because I started to read my Bible without making the assumption that what I was taught growing up was right.
And what I see in the example of Christ runs totally counter to nationalism. Jesus reached out to people of other countries that were despised by his fellow Jews at the time. His Grace was extended far beyond the borders and people of Isreal. He even healed one of the soldiers of the country that was oppressing them!
When we "Love your neighbor as yourself" there is no room to let borders effect the kindness and love you show other people
Despite my comments about religion in my top-level post, you very much see the truth of things, and applaud you for reading the Bible yourself. If you're going to adhere to a religion, knowing the...
Despite my comments about religion in my top-level post, you very much see the truth of things, and applaud you for reading the Bible yourself. If you're going to adhere to a religion, knowing the actual truth of what it stands for first hand is the best way.... Not relying purely on the teachings of those you know, because the biases from elsewhere in life have often bled into the teachings. It's how we ended up with the "God and Guns" party, despite the fact that the big J probably would have been quite displeased with the current state of the 2nd amendment.
I read the Bible for myself when I started questioning my faith, and was part of the nail in the coffin for why I abandoned it entirely. There was a lot of bad intermingled with the good, and trying to separate those in a coherent manner was nigh-impossible. Not all will take my route on that journey, but the journey is a good one, because each person must be accountable to the morals they hold.
Yeah, I've had some really hard moments with it, especially the contrast between the Old and New testaments. I certainly don't have it all figured out, and there's still plenty I struggle with....
Yeah, I've had some really hard moments with it, especially the contrast between the Old and New testaments. I certainly don't have it all figured out, and there's still plenty I struggle with.
The thing that keeps me going with it is the impact it's had on my personal life and the life of my wife. We didn't know each other in high school, but we both had undiagnosed mental illnesses and we struggled with major depression and suicidal ideation.
I had parents that absolutely refused to get me any form of treatment, even after I begged them for it. I came to a place where I actively hated God. But then in a moment of absolute desperation, I asked Him for help. I admitted that if I kept going down the road I was on that it would kill me. At that moment, I had this crazy experience that changed everything about me and my life, and it honestly saved my life. My wife's story is similar to mine.
I'm NOT saying that faith cures all mental health. I'm NOT saying it's a replacement for therapy or a replacement for meds. What I am saying is that it gave me just enough strength to survive something that otherwise would have killed me. It got me through to adulthood when I could finally get treatment for myself (albeit at the intense reproach of my parents)
What I know is this, Jesus said the greatest command is to Love God, and the second greatest command is to Love others. If that's the second greatest command, then everything that appears to run counter to that is likely being misinterpreted or has been superseded by that command.
I've read a good argument that religion is the original "augmented reality". It imbues the material world with all kinds of meaning that people need/want. Despite its many flaws and problems,...
I've read a good argument that religion is the original "augmented reality". It imbues the material world with all kinds of meaning that people need/want.
Despite its many flaws and problems, religion serves as one of the most powerful mental frameworks for motivation, resilience, etc. Belief in the otherworldly helps people endure the unendurable. An extremely extreme example is Buddhist monks who self-immolate.
As an atheist, in my personal experience, observations, and readings, highly religious communities and individuals seem to exhibit much lower rates of mental illness. My reasoning is that their source of happiness and meaning is internal, resistant to external effects like poverty or loss of status.
Compare this to communities and individuals with materialist attitudes where they obtain happiness and meaning externally from economic prosperity, social relationships, etc.
This is all terribly unscientific. Again, these are just my personal observations. I'd very much like to see a modern, popular secular 'church' of rational philosophy or whatever. I just observe that the prevailing modern attitude that happiness = wealth + achievements + experiences + social relationships isn't working well for a lot of people.
I really appreciate those who still see the value in religion even when they don't believe in a higher power. As a person of faith I do believe that the peace and joy comes from a supernatural...
I really appreciate those who still see the value in religion even when they don't believe in a higher power.
As a person of faith I do believe that the peace and joy comes from a supernatural source, but I also understand and agree that a large piece of it is found in the community around it.
There are also things in the Bible that encourage positive perspective shifts. There's actually a verse that says "Godliness with contentment is great gain".
Godliness is encouraging a life of selfless kindness and unconditional love and forgiveness (despite what some may tell you) and an attitude of being content with your position in life.
I think you really nailed it when you said that it doesn't look to the material world for happiness, but beyond looking inward it also looks outward to showing love to all (no us or them).
There's something special to having a purpose in life, and especially one that involves pouring everything you have into those who are hurt and broken. And to be honest, we are all hurt and broken.
One major problem with nationalism is the same problem that plagues religion....it's a powerful shortcut just as easy to use maliciously as for good.
Religion is a shortcut for morality...you don't need to contemplate the moral consequences because your religous leader does it for you and spits out the result (abortion is wrong, gays are evil, etc).
Nationalism is a shortcut for unity. Bolstering the strength of tribalistic, arbitrary boundaries is antithetical to building empathy at a global scale, which is desperately needed so long as international trade exists. Yes, it might have helped stopped COVID faster...but that's also how you get Brexit and withdrawing from the Paris Climate Accords.
Those shortcuts are powerful because they are easily deeply ingrained and hard to overcome, because tribalism is a somewhat primal instinct. But much of the betterment of humanity is predicated on taming our primal instincts, not fostering them. It's one reason I consider the "Capitalism is good because it taps into natural human greed for productivity" an outdated and harmful justification.... we'll never do better if we keep fostering greed and calling it a good thing.
And once that hard to remove shortcut is there, it's simple enough for anyone with sufficient influence to tap into it and guide the tribe into a bad place.
This is simply balling up all of "religion" into a very reductive framework for how specific groups of right wing fundamentalists operate. The vast majority of religious people and religious practitioners disagree with each other and their clergy basically all the time and approaching religious practice as a checklist of "good and bad" things to do has generally been derided by religious thinkers going back forever.
If your definition of progress or "betterment" is going to focus on undoing humanity I think you're going to be setting yourself up for failure. Most people don't want to be eroding their basic humanity they want to experience it more richly. They are definitely not going to want to sacrifice it on some amorphously goalless sense of "progress" for the species as a whole, as dictated to them by ideologically motivated moralizers, to their detriment of the values they immediately hold dear.
I get that, but that's also because that reductive framework applies to many, many, many religions past and present, which is very useful when talking in the abstract about religion and not any particular sect. I always judge a religion (and practitioners) by how the believers treat the non-believers (and deserters), and most religions around the world do not have a good track record there. They do better in secular states, where there is a clear separation between government authority and religious authority. Which is part of why I am terrified of the de-secularization of the US government. But even many of the most tolerant religious folks are immediately distrusting of atheists and are perfectly happy to see them ostracized from their communities.
If you doubt this, go to any random public church fundraiser sometime, strike up some smalltalk, then mention casually how you abandoned your faith and you won't be raising your children with God in their life. See how fast you get ghosted or the conversation steers to "bringing you back on the right path."
Perhaps an example is in order. Killing someone whom punches you in the face is a perfectly natural primal instinct. It is not conducive to maintaining a co-operative civil society. Taming that primal urge is required in order to stop the cycle of violence.
When I say taming, I'm saying we have to acknowledge our base instinct and evaluate the positive and negative aspects. It is hypothetically what separates us from the animals. Punishment for crimes is appealing to a primal instinct for retribution, but more and more evidence is being found that rehabilitation is far more effective, despite going against the primal instincts.
How do you think the USA got to such the sorry state it is in? From the beginning, the colonization was driven by right-wing puritans whom saw themselves as the moralizers of the world, evidenced by various missionaries and crusades. Most of the right-wing backwardness is attributable to feeling that it's OK to impose your morals on others, regardless of theirs.
This is just not true. Harmonious interaction between members of different religious communities is the norm across human history. Violence is the exception and generally coincides with many of the more typical reasons for political violence. Don't confuse how states treat each other and their subjects with what regular people do.
The divide between "secular" and "religious" spheres itself assumes a Christian (and specifically Protestant) conception of what religions are, how they work, and the role of religion in peoples' lives. It's foreign to Islamic societies where the "religion" was a societal organizing principle, or Dharmic societies where peoples' "religions" were customary traditions and ways of life among people. States here maintained social harmony by not showing favoritism to any specific sect or deity but, since they were polytheists who were more concerned with orthopraxy than orthodoxy, it would not have occurred to them to establish a state religion for everyone who lives under them. The Kingdom/state would have it's own patron deity and they'd insist you not disrespect it, but this wouldn't get in the way of any person not prioritizing that deity in their practice. It did sometimes come to pass that rulers would disrespect the Gods of conquered groups or disfavored minorities, but that was generally frowned upon.
You're creating a dichotomy between nature and society that doesn't exist. Compassion and not wanting to hurt one another are also natural, primal instincts. These instincts are in tension with one another which is where the entire drive to build civilization and develop customary social norms comes from. One of the things they focus on in hand-to-hand fighting and paracombatives training is to shut out the part of your brain that will make you pull your punches in a fight. People have a natural instinct to not hit each other at 100% unless they're in full-on adrenaline mode. This is part of why karate classes make you break boards, so you train yourself into the muscle memory of just hitting as hard as you can.
The moralizing puritans were also at the forefront of the abolition and women's suffrage movements so you win some, you lose some. Social issues throughout history do not map cleanly onto modern left/right categories.
I could make the same statement about atheism. I definitely could have drawn similarities with atheism in 2008-2014. I avoided mentioning my beliefs in public or online because of the condescension or hostility I knew was in store for me if one of those atheists was around. The types who didn't give a shit what my personal beliefs were, the mere fact I believed God could exist was enough to invalidate my opinions on anything and everything. Obviously I wasn't capable of critical thinking; if I was I wouldn't believe in God. Belief in God was seen as an open invitation to call a person slurs and shout at them. I had people tell me at 18 that since I was religious I was going to be a bad parent because I was going to force my poisonous religion down my child's throat. Didn't matter that I didn't plan on having kids. Didn't matter that I think religion should be an individual's choice and children should be introduced to many religions and be supported to follow the one they believe is correct, or to follow none of them if they don't believe. None of it mattered. I was religious therefore I was r*tarded and should be banned from "procreating" (I will never forget how weird the choice of words always felt). You're right about one thing, the atheists would never ghost me. They'd be friends with me and then roll their eyes and make mean-spirited jabs any time my faith came up and then act confused and defensive when I would get pissed at them for mocking me to my face.
Hell, some of the most hateful and exclusionary movements of my lifetime sprang from the atheist community! The new atheist movement on YouTube and Twitter was the blueprint for Gamergate and many of the big New Atheist YouTubers would go on to be major figures in gamergate. Same for the incel community.
My faith is something that has constantly been in flux my whole life. Nothing has ever felt quite right and so I've gone to approximately 12 different churches of various denominations, been atheist, been agnostic, read the Quran and Torah, went to my local Buddist temple and talked about the spiritual side of Buddism. In my experience, Christians will be a bit pushy and try to convert you but once you say no they usually drop it and move on. Atheists usually just try to make me feel like garbage for believing in God and bully me into abandoning my beliefs.
And this is not to say all atheists are big mean bullies and I hate them. I have plenty of atheist friends who are great and aren't like that. However, this comment to me implies that secular folk/atheists are naturally more open and accepting than religious people and I very strongly disagree with that idea.
You will never see this behavior in Jewish or pagan communities because it is only evangelical (small e, not the churches that call themselves Evangelical) religions who do this. You are talking about Christians and a vocal minority of Muslims.
Never? That is definitely not true. Haredi (ultra-Orthodox) Jewish communities treat apostasy with ostracism, and even still occasionally make use of official censures/excommunication (Niddui/Herem/Nezifah). And even outside those more strict Jewish communities, social pressures are often applied to wayward adherents. E.g. One of my father's best friends is Jewish (not Orthodox), married a Catholic woman who refused to convert to Judaism, and his family (also not Orthodox) barely talks to him anymore as a result.
That's fair. Some very extreme Jews are like this. That said, it's much, much, much more common in Christianity.
It's not just "very extreme Jews" that do it though. My father's friend isn't "extreme" in his religious convictions and neither is the majority of his family. However, breaking from long-standing traditions (as he did by divorcing then remarrying outside the faith, and as his new wife did by refusing to convert), or even doing something considered taboo, causing those people to experience social pressure to conform, or even ostracization if they don't, isn't a uniquely Christian, Muslim, or even religious thing.
As for how common that behavior is in different religions or cultures, that isn't something I have ever seen statistics or sociological studies on, so I would personally be wary of making any broad generalizations about it. But there is likely an element of that behavior, to varying degrees, in nearly every place and with nearly every group of people though, since IMO it's simply human nature to treat non-conformers differently, and often poorly.
Absolutely! But the specific thing that vord said was:
That's not something any Reform or Conservative community I've ever been a part of would find acceptable, and certainly not something any pagan I've ever met would support. It's a specific kind of social pressure that is, in my opinion, more pernicious than just "peer pressure" - and nearly unique to evangelical religions, which Judaism is explicitly not supposed to be.
Huh? Getting ghosted after failing to bring him and his wife "back on the right path" (by constantly trying to convince him not to marry her unless she converted, and convince her to convert) is exactly what happened to my father's friend. And I would call that more than just your garden variety peer pressure. So I don't understand the distinction you're trying to make here. Jewish people, regardless of how devout or not they are, aren't immune from the more extreme forms of ostracization seen in other religions and cultures when traditions are broken. Prevalence of that behavior is a different matter, but again, I would still be hesitant to make a blanket conclusion about it "never" happening in the Jewish faith, or only happening at the more extreme end spectrum, especially since my father's friend experienced it first hand.
I don't think this kind of abuse of religion is exclusive to the right wing fundamentalist Christian movement. Religion has been used this way for thousands of years. Any time a religion prescribes a power structure, the people at the top of said structure almost invariably become corrupt at some point.
The concept outlined here reminds me of one of my favorite ideas, from Dwight D. Eisenhower's farewell speech:
He was referring to an end to the then only budding Cold War freeing up the resources needed to take care of the world's people, but I think we still have the same opportunity today, if we are willing to take it.
And if Kennedy hadn't been assassinated, his wish might have come to fruition.
I too hope we can build the political will to end poverty, but too many still see it as a "necessary evil" to insure we still have janitors, garbage collectors, and miners.
Do you have anything to support this? Because, with the advancement of technology and efficiency, I only see the opposite.
You've never talked to anybody who says "Poor people are only poor because they choose to be poor" or "If we had social safety nets, nobody would ever work demeaning jobs, so we need to keep people on the brink of homelessness so they get done"?
Lucky. The mentality is everywhere, even in liberal spaces. Though most commonly it's used as justification to eliminate social safety nets and avoid paying living wages.
To me this is a far cry from people thinking poverty is required, and enforced, so that the garbage gets cleaned up. I don't subscribe to this kind of conspiratorial thinking. It assumes far too much. I can see that it's popular, though.
Your quotes confuse conspiracy with the argument that money motivates people to work. Which is the problem that I'm arguing against.
Using any razor here, my reasoning is that reducing social support frameworks is largely motivated by the greed of the "have's". Less money for social security means more money for landowners/business owners/corporations. This is also a factor motivating the adoption of automation.
Not sure where you're getting conspiracy from. I'm merely stating that many people (on both sides of the aisle) see not just that money motivates people to work, but that menial jobs won't be done without threat of poverty. Of course, many of these menial jobs are essential. The idea that we pay more for those jobs instead of relying on threat of poverty is often considered unpalatable for some reason.
And yes, the root and motivations may come from the "haves," but there are massive propaganda networks which propagate that motivation to everyone else, thus making elimination of poverty a difficult political issue to this day.
I'm no political scientist, but I'm not sure the things he wants can only be achieved by nationalism, or even that nationalism will automatically bring those things.
Believing your country is the best doesn't mean you will support the good of your country or your fellow countrymen, as has been clearly proven the last few years.
Beyond this, there has been a lot of rhetoric that people "on the other side" of the political spectrum aren't "real Americans", and it goes so far as to claim that they actively seek to destroy America. If you think a group within your country isn't really a part of your country, your nationalism and defensive or even aggressive behavior are going to be turned towards those people.
I'm a recovering Nationalist. I left it because I started to read my Bible without making the assumption that what I was taught growing up was right.
And what I see in the example of Christ runs totally counter to nationalism. Jesus reached out to people of other countries that were despised by his fellow Jews at the time. His Grace was extended far beyond the borders and people of Isreal. He even healed one of the soldiers of the country that was oppressing them!
When we "Love your neighbor as yourself" there is no room to let borders effect the kindness and love you show other people
Despite my comments about religion in my top-level post, you very much see the truth of things, and applaud you for reading the Bible yourself. If you're going to adhere to a religion, knowing the actual truth of what it stands for first hand is the best way.... Not relying purely on the teachings of those you know, because the biases from elsewhere in life have often bled into the teachings. It's how we ended up with the "God and Guns" party, despite the fact that the big J probably would have been quite displeased with the current state of the 2nd amendment.
I read the Bible for myself when I started questioning my faith, and was part of the nail in the coffin for why I abandoned it entirely. There was a lot of bad intermingled with the good, and trying to separate those in a coherent manner was nigh-impossible. Not all will take my route on that journey, but the journey is a good one, because each person must be accountable to the morals they hold.
Yeah, I've had some really hard moments with it, especially the contrast between the Old and New testaments. I certainly don't have it all figured out, and there's still plenty I struggle with.
The thing that keeps me going with it is the impact it's had on my personal life and the life of my wife. We didn't know each other in high school, but we both had undiagnosed mental illnesses and we struggled with major depression and suicidal ideation.
I had parents that absolutely refused to get me any form of treatment, even after I begged them for it. I came to a place where I actively hated God. But then in a moment of absolute desperation, I asked Him for help. I admitted that if I kept going down the road I was on that it would kill me. At that moment, I had this crazy experience that changed everything about me and my life, and it honestly saved my life. My wife's story is similar to mine.
I'm NOT saying that faith cures all mental health. I'm NOT saying it's a replacement for therapy or a replacement for meds. What I am saying is that it gave me just enough strength to survive something that otherwise would have killed me. It got me through to adulthood when I could finally get treatment for myself (albeit at the intense reproach of my parents)
What I know is this, Jesus said the greatest command is to Love God, and the second greatest command is to Love others. If that's the second greatest command, then everything that appears to run counter to that is likely being misinterpreted or has been superseded by that command.
I've read a good argument that religion is the original "augmented reality". It imbues the material world with all kinds of meaning that people need/want.
Despite its many flaws and problems, religion serves as one of the most powerful mental frameworks for motivation, resilience, etc. Belief in the otherworldly helps people endure the unendurable. An extremely extreme example is Buddhist monks who self-immolate.
As an atheist, in my personal experience, observations, and readings, highly religious communities and individuals seem to exhibit much lower rates of mental illness. My reasoning is that their source of happiness and meaning is internal, resistant to external effects like poverty or loss of status.
Compare this to communities and individuals with materialist attitudes where they obtain happiness and meaning externally from economic prosperity, social relationships, etc.
This is all terribly unscientific. Again, these are just my personal observations. I'd very much like to see a modern, popular secular 'church' of rational philosophy or whatever. I just observe that the prevailing modern attitude that happiness = wealth + achievements + experiences + social relationships isn't working well for a lot of people.
I really appreciate those who still see the value in religion even when they don't believe in a higher power.
As a person of faith I do believe that the peace and joy comes from a supernatural source, but I also understand and agree that a large piece of it is found in the community around it.
There are also things in the Bible that encourage positive perspective shifts. There's actually a verse that says "Godliness with contentment is great gain".
Godliness is encouraging a life of selfless kindness and unconditional love and forgiveness (despite what some may tell you) and an attitude of being content with your position in life.
I think you really nailed it when you said that it doesn't look to the material world for happiness, but beyond looking inward it also looks outward to showing love to all (no us or them).
There's something special to having a purpose in life, and especially one that involves pouring everything you have into those who are hurt and broken. And to be honest, we are all hurt and broken.