Religion
Related: About this forumCaliph Donald Trump and The Rise of the Christian Taliban
From the article:
To read more:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/askamuslim/2018/06/caliph-donald-trump-qnd-the-rise-of-the-christian-taliban/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Muslim&utm_content=49
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)Religion more often props up a tyrannical government than protects the people from it. Sure there are exceptions, but what the Christian Taliban are trying to do right now has already been done many times in the past.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)persecute others who hold different beliefs. Nor do they start wars in the name of religion, or country, or politics.
That is done by a very small percentage of people who are obsessed with power. Sometimes those people are religious leaders, sometimes they are political leaders, sometimes they are both.
In China, the atheists in charge are persecuting theists and others who they see as possibly disruptive to their own power.
Those in power will use organized religion if they can, or the state religion if no organized religion exists. It is about co-opting the currently existing power centers to the service of the leader.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)Until the Enlightenment, religious intolerance was the norm. Even in the USA, anti-Catholicism and anti-Semitism was accepted until after WWII. Today we are see a resurgence of anti-Semitism and new anti-Muslim feelings. Is this an anomaly or reversion to historic norms? I don't know the answer to that, and neither do you.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)An aspect of tribalism, which is itself a survival mechanism. Religion is often, but not always a component.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)Some hunter gatherer societies have never known war.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)And mankind was moving into cities as early as the Neolithic age, 13,000 years or so in the past.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)Even among warlike tribes, war is infrequent and short compared to post-Neolithic.
And it doesn't matter if they are exception. It means something other than tribalism causes war and intolerance.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)THAT would take some planning.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)Religion is just another thing to fight over. It's not like fighting over food or water.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Regarding the "end war" part of it.
We can agree on what a solution might look like, but the measure of a plan is how it works.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)so I'd say we should do more of that. I'd expect in such a society, religion would have a diminished role, but some people still might be religious.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)and I am thinking specifically of Canada, intolerance still arises.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)Canada is better than the US in many respects, but it is not as good as it could be.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)First Peoples were generally treated as second class citizens.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)Or are we doomed to bash each other's head in forever? Doesn't sound like something Jesus thought.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)I would say that progress is being made, but not fast enough in my view.
The US generally uses its military to get what it wants. Diplomacy is not the preferred option. But constant war reinforces the perceived need for the largest military.
Before the US, it was other colonial powers.
How does one separate the toxic aspects of tribalism from the beneficial aspects?
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Look at the EU. A group of modern countries that cannot work together very well or for very long.
I wish that I had an answer.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)You are talking about the "Concept of the Political" as described by Carl Schmitt, who said, "Man needs an enemy." But I don't agree with that. Maybe some people need an enemy, but I don't and many others don't. And if many don't need an enemy, then the rest can learn it.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Nationalism is tribalism.
Can we unlearn tribalism? Perhaps.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)Does it do that for you. It would be interesting if it did.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)It is used to motivate.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)And what do you mean by "it is used"?
And how do you know it is innate?
And how in the name of Zeus' olympian butthole do you reconcile this obviously deterministic position with your belief in free will? I've asked this question several times now, but your interest in answering seems inversely proportional to the enthusiasm you show for posting its basic premises.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)I am confused by your 2 questions.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)1) How do you know nationalism/tribalism motivates "most people"? Cite your sources.
2) What do you mean when you say tribalism/nationalism is used to motivate people? Are you saying "to use" as a conscious and deliberate act? If so, how do you know this is the case? Cite your sources.
3) How do you know nationalism/tribalism is innate, i.e., human nature? Cite your sources.
4) How do you reconcile the obviously deterministic position you're taking re: tribalism/nationalism, with your previous assertion that kids die of bone cancer because free will? Trust me, we're all very interested to hear this one.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)2) My opinion, based on my reading of history.
3) Where did I claim that it is innate?
4) Not a question, but a repeat of an accusation made by some few here.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)1) So you're bullshitting.
2) So you're bullshitting.
3) Clarification: Everywhere you said the word "human" followed by either the word "condition" or the word "nature" or any of their derivatives.
4) Clarification: The question mark indicates an interrogative. You have previously stated your belief in free will, and previously stated you believe certain behaviors to be "human nature". These beliefs are incompatible. I am asking you to reconcile them, i.e. explain that they aren't contradictory, explain your views have changed, or explain that you've been miscommunicating for a very long time now.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)1 and 2) You refuse to recognize that people have opinions. Feel free to present your alternative view that explains all of human history.
3) You made a specific claim that you cannot support.
4) Old argument, old claim, and nothing will be solved no matter what is said.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)I recognize people have opinions. I have opinions, too. I also recognize the limitations of my opinions and rarely present them so matter-of-factly. I do not pretend to know what is and what is not in human nature, nor do I have any idea whether or not people in power consciously exploit this nature or are simply prey to it as well. I have my suspicions, but I doubt their usefulness.
Oh yea, there's this, for a start: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=288635
Mull it over and get back to us. I'm sure a cogent retort is forthcoming.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)I don't think you understand what that phrase means.
Because if you did, you wouldn't have used it to describe a population that voted *overwhelmingly* for Donald Trump.
Voltaire2
(13,293 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)of the GOP. Unless, of course, you do not believe in the concept of personal responsibility.
Voltaire2
(13,293 posts)is stuff your gods had a hand in?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)So is the good stuff that they do.
My conclusion: humans are imperfect.
Voltaire2
(13,293 posts)Great. So religion, a human construct, is doing horrible shit all over the world, and sometimes a bit of good stuff too. Should we weigh it up and figure out if on balance religion is basically fing horrible?
Better not, huh?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Or are they also capable of doing good things?
Is human society basically horrible?
If you expect perfection, you will always be disappointed.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)to actually act moral.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Leading directly back to my previous question.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Or do no harm, and other similar ideas.
The question for me would be:
how do we keep those who would dominate others from power?
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)but again, we are dealing with imperfect humans.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)I know you don't like doing that, but other Christians, particularly the most intolerant ones, have no trouble at all with it. Puts you at a disadvantage.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Trying to silence atheist voices on DU, for instance.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)I can speak to my positions, and I can also justify them with the words of Jesus, and try to influence others.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)Unless you mean Guillaumbism, a small Christian sect, rather than Christianity as a whole.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)meaning my own interpretation.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)Since so many other Christians have no problem speaking for all.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Mariana
(14,863 posts)Very few Christians babble on about some generic sparky "creator" who (figuratively) zap-poofed the universe into existence, and very few Christians believe that the entirety of Christ's message can be expressed in one sentence. It is a very small sect indeed.
Of course, he may be having us on, and really belongs to a denomination with doctrines that are much more clearly defined.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)Sort of like Gnosticism, which is full of mysteries and had an unknown number of followers.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)...then what good is it?
Voltaire2
(13,293 posts)A miracle of deep hole digging has occurred.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Fun fact: The deepest artificial point on Earth is the Kola Superdeep Borehole. Soviet scientists drilled to around 40,000 ft. deep before the dissolution of the Soviet Union caused the project's dissolution.
Another fun fact: In the US, Christians told congregants the Russians had drilled so deep they'd reached Hell. They even released an audio recording of the souls of the damned wailing and gnashing their teeth... which turned out to be an edited loop from the B-movie Baron Blood.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)HAHAHHAHAAh
Oh who am I kidding?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)If democracy can't even help it's own adherents overcome their basal nature...then what good is it?
I say this not to avoid your point, but because we are always dealing with imperfect humans. I never expect perfection, or even close to perfection. It is not in human nature.
Voltaire2
(13,293 posts)Representative democracy appears to be the best we can do. It also might be in a crisis at the current time and it might be the case that it is going to prove to be a failure.
But we dont need organized religion. Instead organized religion is being used as one of the tools to destroy representative democracy and usher in a new era of fascism.
The role of religion in the destruction of democratic institutions is one of the reasons why religion, on balance, is fing horrible.
Thanks for bringing this up.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Is it possible?
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)A vice you often accuse others of.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Prior to Citizens United, money was not speech.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)It's been a growing problem since the Moral Majority was founded.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)400 plus years.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)marylandblue
(12,344 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)marylandblue
(12,344 posts)Maybe one that doesn't point out that Christian intolerance has been such a negative force in our country's entire history.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)As is intolerance based on many other factors. But Christians also fueled (in part) the abolition movement, and the Poor Peoples' Movement of Dr. King, and the civil rights movement, and the anti-war movement of the 1960s, and the liberation theology of Latin America, and the current Poor Peoples' Movement of Reverends Barber and Theoharis.
In my area of Illinois, Father Pfleger, a Catholic priest, has been a large force in social justice fights since the 1970s.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)And you missed the point of my comment. You wonder why atheists have a negative view of religion. You admit the wrongs, but point to a different bogeyman, claiming that the other bogeyman is "human nature" and therefore fouls all things, yet you also point to good things, which are apparently not thereby fouled. Is the only argument between you an atheists about who the bogeyman is?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)We can argue about the claimed motivation, or attempt to rank things that promote intolerance, but in the end, it is humans being typically intolerant of other humans.
I do not wonder why some atheists have a negative view of theists, just as I do not wonder why some theists have a negative view of atheists.
Humans, all humans, in my view, are a mixture of positives and negatives. We accept that and move on.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)Last edited Sat Jun 30, 2018, 03:40 PM - Edit history (1)
Sometimes you refer to anthropology, but anthropology does not take "human nature" as having invariant characteristics. Instead we find an astonishing variety of cultural difference and attitudes. Intolerance is not a given. It varies greatly from person to person and culture to culture. You say that cultures that have never known war are "exceptions." But what makes them so? It's something about the conditions in their society. If we learn what it is, maybe we can bring an updated version to modern times. Isn't that what being a progressive is about? To make the world better, and NOT take something as given just because it has always been?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)nor did I make the claim for every society. But as a general rule, intolerance seems to be a part of tribalism.
As to societies that seem to be without war and intolerance, they are the exception.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)Voltaire2
(13,293 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Does democracy make people perfect? No. Does serve a purpose besides making people perfect? Yes.
Without making people better, what does religion have going for it? What other purpose does it serve? Can that purpose be served by anything else? If so, why is religion preferrable?
And what's this shit about "human nature"? Don't you believe in free will?
Voltaire2
(13,293 posts)to motivate both good and bad acts. On balance it appears to me that it primarily motivates horrible behavior.
But at least we agree that gods have nothing at all to do with it.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Deities do not vote. Humans do so. We must each take responsibility for what we each do.
Voltaire2
(13,293 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)And how imperfect humans generally exhibit that imperfection in their actions and interactions.
Voltaire2
(13,293 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)Since nothing is about religion.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)and completely devoid of any real cohesion or content.
More properly Pope trump, and cardinal Sessions, et al.
Voltaire2
(13,293 posts)Just not whatever gils Religion is.
Does the Taliban have Caliphs?
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)The supreme leader of the Taliban is given the title "Amir al-Mu'minin", "amir" being analogous "caliph".
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)Last edited Thu Jun 28, 2018, 09:22 PM - Edit history (1)
The caliph is head of all Islam. The leader of the Taliban did not take the title of caliph, the leader of ISIS did.
Voltaire2
(13,293 posts)Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)You could argue that the Taliban never claimed religious authority over Muslims outside its territory, but since no Caliph has ever actually had authority over people outside their territory, I would argue this is a distinction without a difference. The Caliph is an absolute spiritual and political ruler. The Amir al-Mu'minin is an absolute spiritual and political ruler.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)Calling yourself Caliph says something about your ambitions. It is deliberately provocative in a way Amir is not.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)But in the context of this story?
I think the point is Trump fancies himself strongman. As to what strongman we're using as a point of comparison, I don't see a need to be overly specific.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)But the actual article has no hint of Islamophobia.
Voltaire2
(13,293 posts)as long as it is only the title?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)And read the entire article.
After doing so, please point specific examples of the Islamophobia that you so freely allege.
Voltaire2
(13,293 posts)You dont see anything even slightly Islamophobic about that?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)using my words. You accused me.
Voltaire2
(13,293 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Just not whatever gils Religion is.
Does the Taliban have Caliphs?
The language is crude, and obviously metaphoric, but there is no evidence to support your various assertions.
Voltaire2
(13,293 posts)from the Islamophobic headline of your op. I understand.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)you would not have made your claim.
Voltaire2
(13,293 posts)implies that if christians behave badly enough they become muslims is not Islamophobic. Is that your position?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Voltaire2
(13,293 posts)op you posted was blatantly Islamophobic.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)and really doesn't contain anything, except a link to a video which goes hard on the same brand of islamophobia. If it was a title to bring attention to the threat of creeping theocracy that would be fine, but it just goes on a list of people calling them muslim clerical titles and using various buzz words. It plays on people's islamophobia in the same way, like it legitimises the view that the right has been pushing.
I understand what they tried to do, but they missed their mark.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)I read a post from a Muslim positing how words are used to define. I read a post where the same terms used, incorrectly, to frame all Muslims could be used against Christian theocrats.
CrispyQ
(36,581 posts)Every democratic seat holder should have read that book when it came out.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Feel free to summarize.
I will check it out.