Why Our Politics Cannot Be Freed from Religion

[smujismuj]

Religion is institutionalized myth, perpetuated by fear, ignorance, peer-pressure and control-freaks.

[fringeelements]

"The state as transformed church" - oooooooh I like where I think this is going.

[derman077]

it's almost time for the new personification of the deity. They had to convert people from astrological age to another. The next 2000 year cycle is Aquarius. I hear they plan to convert the world to the new description using holograms in the sky.

[ThePhysiogirl]

God, this guy is boring. I hate it when people take a fascinating topic and make it so dull it's impossible to pay attention to.

[Awaitingcertainty]

As David Berlinski, acgostic secular Jew asks in THE DEVIL'S DELUSION: "Just who has imposed on the suffering human race poison gas, barbed wire, high explosives, experiments in eugenics, the formula for Zyklon B, heavy artillery, pseudo-scientific justifications for mass murder, cluster bombs, attack submarines, napalm, intercontinental ballistic missiles, military space platforms, and nuclear weapons?

"If memory serves, it was not the Vatican."

If memory serves, it was not the Vatican.

[TheAwflores]

religion is a basis for morality? what makes you assume humankind is immoral? religion! the most immoral acts in history have been committed under the guise of religion. if religion is a basis for the morals behind the dark ages, the crusades, and the inquisition then damn me to hell and label me an immoral atheist!

[Awaitingcertainty]

@TheAwflores For scientists persuaded that there is no God, there is no finer pleasure than recounting the history of religious brutality and persecution. There is no need to argue the point. A great deal of human suffering has been caused by religious fanaticism. If the Inquisition no longer has the power to compel our indignation, the Moslem world often seems quite prepared to carry the burden of exuberant depravity in its place.

[theknowledgeseeker]

just do a good thing and you won't get lost

[timdnoincumbents]

it is amazing that some one would call superstition dangerous, what about law that is based on feelings or love instead of right and wrong. superstition isn't dangerous, it's wrong. religion is not superstitious. religion is a basis for morality. without religion there is no reason for morality. morality is the proof of God. no man would dream up self control.

[soupdragon42]

Mainstream science is now driven largely by ideology, much of which was inspired by religious dogma. Take the Big Bang, for example. George Lemaitre was a mathematician and a high-ranking priest whose aim was to reconcile science with the biblical creation event. We also assume that our solar system is steady and unchanging based on it being a perfect and divine creation. The evidence, however, suggests that the universe is infinitely old, and that our solar system is unstable.

[DeimosSaturn]

"Mainstream Science"? There's only one kind of science I know of and that's the science that is arrived at by the scientific method and the process of peer review.

[soupdragon42]

Money, for example, is driving alleged climate change, and has corrupted the peer review system to back poiltical ideology. Less than 50 climate scientists support it, but they are well funded and peer review each others work.

[DeimosSaturn]

Forgive me if I call bullshit on your "less than 50 climate scientists support it" apologetic.

[OldSchoolSkill]

We certainly can and SHOULD get religion out of politics.

This guy confuses verbose vocabulary with intelligence, thereby impressing the mentally torpid.

Religion is superstition. Superstition is always dangerous when it shapes political power.

[baalsyrup785]

That many wise persons can caught on this global brainwashing fraud yet as this in the world middle that event today. Religion that breaks out and be quiet is the random route that breaks out with all the evil and these world. I can not think without establishing to the person who thinks logical even a few meaning even which of it we should begin to request the taxes to those property holdings of the church. How is it it to be big with a random conversation when you are escaping a tax?

[metalorg]

This is backwards. Religion can't be freed from politics as it is one form of it- but there is certainly many forms of politics without religion.

I think this is confusing "government" with "politics". There would be religion in government as long as there are religious people in government.

lolz.

(Feel free to be condescending about my use of lolz)

[nuavecmoi]

I think when we say that religion is one part of politics and cannot be separated, then we make it so. Religion is a detriment to human existence. It's extremely dangerous.

In our modern conception of government, government is politics. Gov't is the body and politics is the language. Or more like government is the body and politics is the cells that make up that body, and religion is the brain that controls that body.

What forms has politics taken that's without religion?

[metalorg]

You misread my comment. Much of what you've said doesn't apply.

There is a colloquial use of "politics" as "government" but the word 'politics' is a very broad term.

I don't get your analogy of government with politics and religion as a body. Politics is the social process in which people make decisions.

Some examples of politics without religion:

-Atheist society choose a leader

-A family decides the type of pizza to order

-Your girlfriend stops talking to you

-nobody wears bell-bottoms anymore

[nuavecmoi]

I believe that religion is a detriment to society. We don't need religion to live; however, religion gives agency to politics and vice versa. It's not that we can't live without religion; it's that we think we can't.

[Cotoredondo]

And just look at Iran, where the religious authorities have the final say in politics, as we have recently witnessed. Name a single clergyman in the U.S. who has wielded a comparable amount of influence and power on the political system. Oral Roberts? Jimmy Swaggart?? Billy Graham??? lol

[S3PARADIGM]

I would advise againse ending a comment on a video of a debate with "lol." It detracts from people's view of your comment.

[Cotoredondo]

I included the "lol" for individuals such as yourself who fail to grasp the sarcasm of equating, in the form of redundant questions, the political influence of religious figures in the U.S. with the power of the clergy in Iran. Obviously, I underestimated the extent to which you interpret statements literally.

I leave you to indulge in your self-deprecation and "Christianophobia" (clarification: despite liberal convictions, Islamophobia is not the only religious prejudice in existence).

[nuavecmoi]

There is no such thing as fear of Islam. People fear people who follow Islam. More to the point though, they fear being blown up in it's name, not the religion itself. I don't think that anyone FEARS Christianity (gay people don't fear the religion, they fear those who follow it.), it's more that people are angry with it's hypocrisy and obvious hunger for power. I don't think that Jesus would agree that Christian should have a hand in politics.

[nuavecmoi]

I love people who using big words...lol. I find them to be the stupidest people out there. They use the jargon of an academic to sound intelligent, but only come off sounding like an ass.

And you're a republican...surprise surprise.

[Cotoredondo]

Nuavecmoi said "I love people who use BIG WORDS...lol. I find them to be the stupidest people out there."

I'm at a loss. Which of my words were unnecessarilly big? Was it "registered", "discernable", or "agnostic"?

Expained in small words for you:

I be republican, but not all the time vote republican. I do not follow any religion, my beliefs being that God cannot be shown or not shown. I look at what politicians do...over and over. Not words. Me happy

Simple enough for you?

[nuavecmoi]

As the lecturer said, religion is seen as an individual matter, especially for the individual-centered American.

The American politician doesn't receive authority from a cleric. He/She first receives authority from God, like a pharaoh, then from the religious right-wing, who buy into the smoke screen of a god fearing man/woman who is seeking to represent them. These people don't care about the best president candidate, they care about a god-fearing presidential candidate.

[Cotoredondo]

I am a registered republican and yet I'm agnostic. I don't care at all about who is god-fearing, but rather who has a consistent record (e.g., in legislation, etc.). Speeches, claims of personal beliefs, and promises mean almost nothing to me. I judge them based on the discernable patterns of their actions.

[nuavecmoi]

And yet you don't seem to understand that how one presents him/herself affects voter perception, therefore who gets to decide and vote on legislation.

Legislation or law is the end product of claims of personal beliefs and promises and speeches made. You might not care, but all the other stupid republicans do.

Regardless, this is going to go nowhere, discussion with Republicans is like trying to teach a donkey physics, but some how I feel like I would have an easier time with the donkey.

[Psy0pAgent]

ISIS

RA

EL

We've all been scammed.

[Mahoivlich]

amen......ra

[happosai21]

oh yes.. so true ^^ people should inform themself about the talmud. its pure "hatespeech" against all non jews

[EllyEve]

*dons a pleated miniskirt and waves pom-poms*

All hail the sun god!

For he is a fun god!

Ra, Ra, Ra!

[happosai21]

ohne religion fällt eine gesellschaft auseinander weils das stärkste mittel ist um eine gemeinsame indetiät zu bilden. alle grossen reiche die ihre religion gewechselt oder aufgegeben haben sind binnen kürzester zeit untergegangen

[jalgjalg]

Problem is it builds common identity of an ingroup by creating outgroup differences... this mentality is destructive in a global village and only enhances hostility.

Science is the strongest way to build common ground between people... it's core is not blind faith in the dogma's of an ingroup but shared knowledge about the critical doubts and empirical findings of every thinking human being.

[wood9670]

What are you talking about?

Science can never speak to the questions of morality or history nor can it verify the philosophical assumptions on which it owes its existence..

I agree, human beings by virtue of EVOLUTION feel drawn to small, in-group, authoritative associations but these emerge everywhere.

Family, religion, political parties, social clubs, ect. Even those who call themselves secular free-thinkers are in fact themselves trapped in the same in-group mentality they criticize.

[jalgjalg]

1. I was talking about the absurd claim that religion is "das stärkste Mittel um eine Gemeinschaft zu bauen".

2. There is indeed a difference between IS and OUGHT, but science can at least make intersubjectively shareable claims about the reality we will have to build our ethical arguments on.

As for metaphilosophical assumptions: religion may believe to be better founded merely by proclaiming "ultimate grounds", but it is just as helpless as the scienctific method against radical skepticism.

[jalgjalg]

3. Fact is that all those little communities in the world are using the same technology to communicate with each other... if if they reject science, they cannot help but live together in a world that is created by its possibilities...

Science is what unites the world, religion is the great devider, sorry.

[nuavecmoi]

It's surprising though, how politicians, who all believe so deeply in their perspective religions, use science to go against the every thing they believe in.

Politics and religion have a parasitic relationship and we the general public are felt with the waste products.

Furthermore, even in America, the great democratic nation, acts like a totalitarian nation. There is no politics here, or like the lecturer said, it's curtailed within the inner working of a few.

[nuavecmoi]

Even further, the "politics" in which the regular American is supposed to be participating in, are just speeches, ads, and smoke screens, ie posture of said politician, what they wear, how they speak, etc, to sway the mindless masses.

In America, politics occurs behind closed doors. We, of course, have given up our right to participate in politics, because after we vote, many Americans are finished, they leave it in the hands of God.

[nuavecmoi]

So you mean to say that the "secular free-thinkers" are no different from a religious institution?

Secular free-thinkers dislike the grouping of individuals, ie religious institutions, they dislike what they belief and practice. Big difference. Groupings are natural. Anyone can create a profile of people who fit a group. But when people wield their belief like a fiery sword, that burns the non-believers, while protecting themselves from the same criticism, something is wrong with that.

[nuavecmoi]

So if your criticism is that secular/freethinking/atheists fall in groups and we criticism groups, that I accept that. If this is your main criticism then your argument sounds a bit weak, especially since we don't criticism groupings of people, but what they believe and practice.

Lol...Christians are a group and so are black people. Continuing with your line of though about us criticizing groups, we then also, according to you, criticize black people, just because they fall into a group...lol

[jalgjalg]

I don't think you understood.

My point was that a naturalistic worldview is accessible and acceptable to all people, irrespective of their cultural background... religious worldviews seem to be intimately connected with the places, time and traditions people are born with.

A naturalistic worldview effectively finds common ground between different groups. Religious worldviews claim to seek it but fail on every level, because they're based on faith, which can not be freely shared like knowledge.

[nuavecmoi]

Do you really believe in this "naturalistic worldview"? You mean to tell me that the Western world/First world nations can believe in a naturalistic world view?

Certain cultures hold a naturalistic worldview, other's wanting some form of spirituality in their lives, rather than the grinding rigidity of religion, bite off the cultures/religions who do argue for a naturalistic way of life.

Religion and naturalism have many similarities except for the god part.

[Cotoredondo]

Which cultures adhere (sorry, another big word; please inform me if you require another explanation in monosyllabic terms) to a naturalistic world view? Can you name which want some form of spirituality in their lives? Please, name a few examples. I'm all ears.

Religion and naturalism have similarities? Interesting. Please, name a few.

And what exactly do you mean by "bite off the cultures/religions who do argue for a naturalistic way of life"? Could you cite examples here, as well?

[wood9670]

I meant both. People criticize other peoples ideologies as well as their race, gender, sexual orientation, ect.

///we don't criticism groupings of people, but what they believe and practice.///

Which is true of every political party and religious system as well, no?

You proved my point for me.

[Cotoredondo]

The regimes of the Middle East are influenced by religion (Islam) to a much greater degree than Western countries are by Christianity.

[spiritpunker]

On what basis are you making that assertion?

[Cotoredondo]

On what basis do you even think it's an assumption? Did you assume that I'm just another American who has never visited the Middle East or never had a conversation with a formerly married woman who was flogged for cheating on her husband (law of saudi arabia and Quran) or one who was raped and was unable to prove it because of value of woman as a witness being only a fraction of that of a man in court? Or what about the laws against homosexuality and drinking of alcohol, punishable in Iran?