Religion is often authoritarianism applied to morality. You have to behave the way the supreme being tells you to or you will literally (in their supposition) suffer a fate worse than death.
Exemplary
Religion is often authoritarianism applied to morality. You have to behave the way the supreme being tells you to or you will literally (in their supposition) suffer a fate worse than death.
Religion is supposed to provide moral guidance. Which means they have the right to persuade those that are willing to listen. Forcing someone to comply with a worldview has no transformative...
Exemplary
Religion is supposed to provide moral guidance. Which means they have the right to persuade those that are willing to listen. Forcing someone to comply with a worldview has no transformative power, it merely creates an illusion of uniformity.
Religion should never be the basis for any kind of coercion, and doing so demonstrates a poor understanding of both law and religion.
And, of course, this thing in Ethiopia is absolutely terrible. I just wanted to provide an alternative that doesn't throw the entirety of religion under the bus. We should be building bridges, not burning them.
Forgive me if this sounds harsh, but I don't think you have a good understanding of either law or religion. Both of those things are all about coercion. Charitably, they can only be said to be...
Religion should never be the basis for any kind of coercion, and doing so demonstrates a poor understanding of both law and religion.
Forgive me if this sounds harsh, but I don't think you have a good understanding of either law or religion. Both of those things are all about coercion. Charitably, they can only be said to be distant second-best to the ideal principles they resemble, ethics and faith.
I was not making an accusation towards anyone in particular. That is not a good way to start a conversation. I, of course, respect your point of view even though it looks like we're in...
I was not making an accusation towards anyone in particular. That is not a good way to start a conversation. I, of course, respect your point of view even though it looks like we're in disagreement.
You do sound harsh. Of course I forgive you but that is besides the point.
Tildes is traditionally a place where we try to be nice and appreciative of each other, and your comment brings me bad memories from Reddit. I sure hope Tildes does not become a place where I am too scared to share my thoughts! I am very sensitive to aggression and personal offense, and will disengage completely if a subject triggers my anxiety.
Apologies. That wasn't my intention. I wrote it the way I did because I see a lot of people have what I believe to be this misconception about religion, and you specifically called out "poor...
Apologies. That wasn't my intention. I wrote it the way I did because I see a lot of people have what I believe to be this misconception about religion, and you specifically called out "poor understanding." I should have worded my response differently.
I think coercion comes from extremism of something like religion or anything really, but not inherently whatever the thing is. So it's not necessarily religion, really. It's people, their...
I think coercion comes from extremism of something like religion or anything really, but not inherently whatever the thing is. So it's not necessarily religion, really. It's people, their so-called interpretations or whatever and what they do with it here. I also think you can't assume what anybody knows or doesn't know about anything here and say things like that. It's not cool or kind. You could've just said the last two sentences and it would've been chill. Anyway.
Aye, it was poorly worded. I've apologized to the person to whom I was responding. The point I was clumsily attempting to make is that coercion is a fundamental aspect of religion as distinct from...
Aye, it was poorly worded. I've apologized to the person to whom I was responding.
The point I was clumsily attempting to make is that coercion is a fundamental aspect of religion as distinct from faith or belief. It's not always as extreme as in fundamentalist communities, but it is always there.
"Belief" and "faith" I use interchangeably, because I don't think there's a meaningful distinction there, at least in this context. I'd define them as "the acceptance of propositions regarding morality or ethics as axiomatic without evidence." Religion I would define as "the social edifice constructed upon belief/faith, dedicated to the promulgation of a set of beliefs and to the continuance of its own social order."
The key distinction here is that religion is fundamentally social, while belief/faith is individual. One might receive their set of beliefs through social means, but ultimately each of us has to decide for ourselves what we accept as axiomatic.
So, accepting that religion is a social construct based on belief, how does it differ from other social constructs? Why church instead of, say, the Elks Lodge or whatever? Charitably, you might say that its purpose is to provide a greater understanding of faith-related things than a person might gain by themselves, but if that's the case, what function does the group social aspect serve? Religion could consist of one-on-one conversations between a member of clergy and an adherent, but to my knowledge, no religion limits itself to just that.
It's my contention that religion almost always uses the group dynamic as a method of pressuring people into accepting the religion's suite of beliefs and the attendant social hierarchy. I can see no other functional reason for it. If this weren't the case, then why would nearly every religion have this inherent tension between heterodoxy and orthodoxy?
I guess you could argue that it's tapping into some social aspect of our brains; I've certainly heard people say that worshipping together in a congregation gives them a sort of high they don't often feel in other contexts. Still, I see that as the carrot end of the same stick. Coercion can be about promises as much as threats.
I used to be the sort who'd argue that, yeah, religion has its negative aspects, but it has positives too. A rejection of it would be the proverbial baby and bathwater scenario. I don't believe that any longer. Tribalism is an atavistic indulgence that we can no longer afford, and I can't see how it can be removed from religion.
Essentially the form does not match the substance in religious organizations. Organizations end up becoming organisms with a life of their own, with their own motives, incentives, objectives....
Essentially the form does not match the substance in religious organizations. Organizations end up becoming organisms with a life of their own, with their own motives, incentives, objectives. These often differ substantially from its stated/purported intentions. The church is a perfect example of this - it's really more concerned with growing its own influence than supposed christian virtues like forgiveness and charity.
I think the miscommunication upstairs is because the OP was discussing what religions are supposed to be on paper, while you've been discussing what the organizations actually end up becoming (which, imho, is far more relevant and important).
No, see, I think you're falling into the same misconception. You're talking about faith or belief, not religion. You don't need a social organization to follow the teachings of Jesus, if that's...
No, see, I think you're falling into the same misconception. You're talking about faith or belief, not religion. You don't need a social organization to follow the teachings of Jesus, if that's what you believe is correct.
I see religion as distinct from faith or belief, though it trades upon our innate desire to find order in the cosmos through belief. Religion uses the power of groups and our predilection toward tribalism to enforce its own social hierarchy. Put another way, religion leverages social pressure to coerce people into adopting a system of belief that entrenches its existing power structure.
That's why I say religion and coercion are inextricably linked.
I think that religion can be removed from tribalism. For instance, doesn't some part of the Bible state to not show one's cross necklace? The faith to God was supposed to be personal to oneself, I...
Tribalism is an atavistic indulgence that we can no longer afford, and I can't see how it can be removed from religion.
I think that religion can be removed from tribalism. For instance, doesn't some part of the Bible state to not show one's cross necklace? The faith to God was supposed to be personal to oneself, I thought. I think this notion of "keep ones religious beliefs to oneself" manifests in other religions as well.
The fact that some religions advise to not make one's religion a public matter implies at least some attempts at hindering tribalism within religion.
There are always ways that humans are going to be divided: appearances, cultures, languages, beliefs. I think instead of trying to abolish spirituality, humanity would benefit from learning to respect each other in our differences.
I've said nothing about abolishing spirituality. I haven't made a single argument about spirituality, except maybe that it's distinct from religion. I'll try explaining what I mean again. Say you...
I've said nothing about abolishing spirituality. I haven't made a single argument about spirituality, except maybe that it's distinct from religion.
I'll try explaining what I mean again.
Say you are a devout Christian. That means that at some point you were presented with the idea that there's a God, and he caused a man to be born who was his Son, and that Son became a sacrifice so that humanity can be redeemed. You heard that or read it, and you asked yourself, do I believe this? And you answered "yes."
That is belief. It has nothing to do with being in a particular building with other people on Friday, Saturday or Sunday. It has nothing to do with hearing a person tell stories about people who may or may not have lived thousands of years ago, and having them tell you how that story relates to your life and directs a proper, moral course of action (except the primary proposition of the Christ story, I suppose). It has nothing to do with the persona you present to the other people in your church, or their approval or disdain. It doesn't even have to do with the positive communal feeling of worship that people report. It's simply the proposition of something you have no proof of aside from feeling, and whether you believe it to be true or not.
Now, you may decide that your belief or faith directs you to do all those things, or subject yourself to them, but that comes later. It's built on top of your belief. That superstructure of social ties, activities, admonitions, stories, rituals, that's religion. It's related to faith, belief, or spirituality, but it's distinct from them.
From my experience, religion serves only itself and the people in positions of power and influence within it. Spirituality, faith, and belief are I think inevitable and necessary for thinking, feeling creatures in this universe, but religion is not. It's religion I'd do away with, not spirituality or belief.
Why does a person's belief, that behaving in a certain ways results in suffering a fate worse than death due to a supreme being's rules, need to affect other people who do not hold those beliefs?
Why does a person's belief, that behaving in a certain ways results in suffering a fate worse than death due to a supreme being's rules, need to affect other people who do not hold those beliefs?
I think one of the things that most people miss is religion's idea of group responsibility and collective punishment. It isn't just about conformity or morality. It's about their deity punishing...
I think one of the things that most people miss is religion's idea of group responsibility and collective punishment. It isn't just about conformity or morality. It's about their deity punishing the entire group for not stamping out the undesired behavior.
There is also generally the idea that undesired behaviors aren't just "wrong", but are truly evil. Any such behaviors are seen as caused by actual evil entities (such as Satan or demons). Allowing the behaviors gives these beings a foothold in your society so they can spread their influence to others and turn them from "righteousness".
I absolutely agree with your point, and it's an important aspect to consider. Specifically in US Christianity, I've commonly heard LGTBQ+ acceptance considered a moral failing of our society. If...
I absolutely agree with your point, and it's an important aspect to consider.
Specifically in US Christianity, I've commonly heard LGTBQ+ acceptance considered a moral failing of our society. If we continue to leave these moral issues unaddressed, it will supposedly lead to complete moral and societal collapse, "like the Roman Empire."
The Old Testament contains stories of collective punishment for other's sins, but I cannot think of a single reference in the New Testament besides Revelation. The concept of god punishing evildoers directly, or punishing society as a whole for lack of faith, doesn't seem theologically sound.
I'm not sure if people "miss" that idea so much as people aren't required to accept or acknowledge it, so they don't bring it up. I feel little desire to discuss group responsibility within an...
I'm not sure if people "miss" that idea so much as people aren't required to accept or acknowledge it, so they don't bring it up. I feel little desire to discuss group responsibility within an organized religion, because I do not participate in organized religion. Discussing group responsibility within society, that is something I participate in and would value speaking about.
"Gay sex is wrong because religion says so" seems like a dead end to meaningful discourse; it feels like the equivalent of a parent saying "because I said so." The question remains of "why?"
A person believing a deity is going to punish their entire group because the group failed to control another person's behavior seems like authoritarianism masquerading as spirituality to me.
I get where you're coming from, but it's not that easy. First, the practical - every time the western world uses sanctions, they become a little less effective. People get a little more motivated...
I get where you're coming from, but it's not that easy.
First, the practical - every time the western world uses sanctions, they become a little less effective. People get a little more motivated to try to get out of the western banking system - a little angrier at the west.
Second - imagine you're a poor Ethiopian. You've been raised to be extraordinarily religious; your faith is probably the most important part of your life. Because of the culture you were raised in, you consider homosexuality a mortal sin.
The western world cuts off the food aid that helps feed your children. Do you think that you're going to say "huh, maybe those guys have a point?"
Éducation and exposure to the world's media are what leads people to broaden their ideas. Sanctioning them doesn't. There's quite a body of research on this - when you push someone into a corner, they become more adamant.
Also imagine you're a poor Ethiopian. You've been raised to be extraordinarily religious and faith is a major part of your life, but also you're gay, so you're already struggling with a lot. The...
Also imagine you're a poor Ethiopian. You've been raised to be extraordinarily religious and faith is a major part of your life, but also you're gay, so you're already struggling with a lot. The western world cuts off food and aid, because they're protecting you? So now you're hungry and you have to deal with everything else.
This makes me angry and sad.
Let people have consensual gay sex. Why do some people care so much about other people's private sex lives? It's invasive.
It’s usually religion.
Why does one person's religion need to interfere with another person's life?
Religion is often authoritarianism applied to morality. You have to behave the way the supreme being tells you to or you will literally (in their supposition) suffer a fate worse than death.
Religion is supposed to provide moral guidance. Which means they have the right to persuade those that are willing to listen. Forcing someone to comply with a worldview has no transformative power, it merely creates an illusion of uniformity.
Religion should never be the basis for any kind of coercion, and doing so demonstrates a poor understanding of both law and religion.
And, of course, this thing in Ethiopia is absolutely terrible. I just wanted to provide an alternative that doesn't throw the entirety of religion under the bus. We should be building bridges, not burning them.
Forgive me if this sounds harsh, but I don't think you have a good understanding of either law or religion. Both of those things are all about coercion. Charitably, they can only be said to be distant second-best to the ideal principles they resemble, ethics and faith.
I was not making an accusation towards anyone in particular. That is not a good way to start a conversation. I, of course, respect your point of view even though it looks like we're in disagreement.
You do sound harsh. Of course I forgive you but that is besides the point.
Tildes is traditionally a place where we try to be nice and appreciative of each other, and your comment brings me bad memories from Reddit. I sure hope Tildes does not become a place where I am too scared to share my thoughts! I am very sensitive to aggression and personal offense, and will disengage completely if a subject triggers my anxiety.
Apologies. That wasn't my intention. I wrote it the way I did because I see a lot of people have what I believe to be this misconception about religion, and you specifically called out "poor understanding." I should have worded my response differently.
I think coercion comes from extremism of something like religion or anything really, but not inherently whatever the thing is. So it's not necessarily religion, really. It's people, their so-called interpretations or whatever and what they do with it here. I also think you can't assume what anybody knows or doesn't know about anything here and say things like that. It's not cool or kind. You could've just said the last two sentences and it would've been chill. Anyway.
Aye, it was poorly worded. I've apologized to the person to whom I was responding.
The point I was clumsily attempting to make is that coercion is a fundamental aspect of religion as distinct from faith or belief. It's not always as extreme as in fundamentalist communities, but it is always there.
"Belief" and "faith" I use interchangeably, because I don't think there's a meaningful distinction there, at least in this context. I'd define them as "the acceptance of propositions regarding morality or ethics as axiomatic without evidence." Religion I would define as "the social edifice constructed upon belief/faith, dedicated to the promulgation of a set of beliefs and to the continuance of its own social order."
The key distinction here is that religion is fundamentally social, while belief/faith is individual. One might receive their set of beliefs through social means, but ultimately each of us has to decide for ourselves what we accept as axiomatic.
So, accepting that religion is a social construct based on belief, how does it differ from other social constructs? Why church instead of, say, the Elks Lodge or whatever? Charitably, you might say that its purpose is to provide a greater understanding of faith-related things than a person might gain by themselves, but if that's the case, what function does the group social aspect serve? Religion could consist of one-on-one conversations between a member of clergy and an adherent, but to my knowledge, no religion limits itself to just that.
It's my contention that religion almost always uses the group dynamic as a method of pressuring people into accepting the religion's suite of beliefs and the attendant social hierarchy. I can see no other functional reason for it. If this weren't the case, then why would nearly every religion have this inherent tension between heterodoxy and orthodoxy?
I guess you could argue that it's tapping into some social aspect of our brains; I've certainly heard people say that worshipping together in a congregation gives them a sort of high they don't often feel in other contexts. Still, I see that as the carrot end of the same stick. Coercion can be about promises as much as threats.
I used to be the sort who'd argue that, yeah, religion has its negative aspects, but it has positives too. A rejection of it would be the proverbial baby and bathwater scenario. I don't believe that any longer. Tribalism is an atavistic indulgence that we can no longer afford, and I can't see how it can be removed from religion.
Essentially the form does not match the substance in religious organizations. Organizations end up becoming organisms with a life of their own, with their own motives, incentives, objectives. These often differ substantially from its stated/purported intentions. The church is a perfect example of this - it's really more concerned with growing its own influence than supposed christian virtues like forgiveness and charity.
I think the miscommunication upstairs is because the OP was discussing what religions are supposed to be on paper, while you've been discussing what the organizations actually end up becoming (which, imho, is far more relevant and important).
No, see, I think you're falling into the same misconception. You're talking about faith or belief, not religion. You don't need a social organization to follow the teachings of Jesus, if that's what you believe is correct.
I see religion as distinct from faith or belief, though it trades upon our innate desire to find order in the cosmos through belief. Religion uses the power of groups and our predilection toward tribalism to enforce its own social hierarchy. Put another way, religion leverages social pressure to coerce people into adopting a system of belief that entrenches its existing power structure.
That's why I say religion and coercion are inextricably linked.
I think that religion can be removed from tribalism. For instance, doesn't some part of the Bible state to not show one's cross necklace? The faith to God was supposed to be personal to oneself, I thought. I think this notion of "keep ones religious beliefs to oneself" manifests in other religions as well.
The fact that some religions advise to not make one's religion a public matter implies at least some attempts at hindering tribalism within religion.
There are always ways that humans are going to be divided: appearances, cultures, languages, beliefs. I think instead of trying to abolish spirituality, humanity would benefit from learning to respect each other in our differences.
I've said nothing about abolishing spirituality. I haven't made a single argument about spirituality, except maybe that it's distinct from religion.
I'll try explaining what I mean again.
Say you are a devout Christian. That means that at some point you were presented with the idea that there's a God, and he caused a man to be born who was his Son, and that Son became a sacrifice so that humanity can be redeemed. You heard that or read it, and you asked yourself, do I believe this? And you answered "yes."
That is belief. It has nothing to do with being in a particular building with other people on Friday, Saturday or Sunday. It has nothing to do with hearing a person tell stories about people who may or may not have lived thousands of years ago, and having them tell you how that story relates to your life and directs a proper, moral course of action (except the primary proposition of the Christ story, I suppose). It has nothing to do with the persona you present to the other people in your church, or their approval or disdain. It doesn't even have to do with the positive communal feeling of worship that people report. It's simply the proposition of something you have no proof of aside from feeling, and whether you believe it to be true or not.
Now, you may decide that your belief or faith directs you to do all those things, or subject yourself to them, but that comes later. It's built on top of your belief. That superstructure of social ties, activities, admonitions, stories, rituals, that's religion. It's related to faith, belief, or spirituality, but it's distinct from them.
From my experience, religion serves only itself and the people in positions of power and influence within it. Spirituality, faith, and belief are I think inevitable and necessary for thinking, feeling creatures in this universe, but religion is not. It's religion I'd do away with, not spirituality or belief.
Why does a person's belief, that behaving in a certain ways results in suffering a fate worse than death due to a supreme being's rules, need to affect other people who do not hold those beliefs?
I think one of the things that most people miss is religion's idea of group responsibility and collective punishment. It isn't just about conformity or morality. It's about their deity punishing the entire group for not stamping out the undesired behavior.
There is also generally the idea that undesired behaviors aren't just "wrong", but are truly evil. Any such behaviors are seen as caused by actual evil entities (such as Satan or demons). Allowing the behaviors gives these beings a foothold in your society so they can spread their influence to others and turn them from "righteousness".
I absolutely agree with your point, and it's an important aspect to consider.
Specifically in US Christianity, I've commonly heard LGTBQ+ acceptance considered a moral failing of our society. If we continue to leave these moral issues unaddressed, it will supposedly lead to complete moral and societal collapse, "like the Roman Empire."
The Old Testament contains stories of collective punishment for other's sins, but I cannot think of a single reference in the New Testament besides Revelation. The concept of god punishing evildoers directly, or punishing society as a whole for lack of faith, doesn't seem theologically sound.
I'm not sure if people "miss" that idea so much as people aren't required to accept or acknowledge it, so they don't bring it up. I feel little desire to discuss group responsibility within an organized religion, because I do not participate in organized religion. Discussing group responsibility within society, that is something I participate in and would value speaking about.
"Gay sex is wrong because religion says so" seems like a dead end to meaningful discourse; it feels like the equivalent of a parent saying "because I said so." The question remains of "why?"
A person believing a deity is going to punish their entire group because the group failed to control another person's behavior seems like authoritarianism masquerading as spirituality to me.
American missionaries.
When I was young, protesters used to chant Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve. It's sad and horrifying and scary.
How dependent are they on Western aid money? Perhaps some sanctions could teach them the value of tolerance.
I get where you're coming from, but it's not that easy.
First, the practical - every time the western world uses sanctions, they become a little less effective. People get a little more motivated to try to get out of the western banking system - a little angrier at the west.
Second - imagine you're a poor Ethiopian. You've been raised to be extraordinarily religious; your faith is probably the most important part of your life. Because of the culture you were raised in, you consider homosexuality a mortal sin.
The western world cuts off the food aid that helps feed your children. Do you think that you're going to say "huh, maybe those guys have a point?"
Éducation and exposure to the world's media are what leads people to broaden their ideas. Sanctioning them doesn't. There's quite a body of research on this - when you push someone into a corner, they become more adamant.
Also imagine you're a poor Ethiopian. You've been raised to be extraordinarily religious and faith is a major part of your life, but also you're gay, so you're already struggling with a lot. The western world cuts off food and aid, because they're protecting you? So now you're hungry and you have to deal with everything else.