Religion
Related: About this forumtwo very different notions of society, each flowing from religious roots
The political divisions in society flow from two very different notions, both of which are deeply rooted in religious thought. Republicans and Democrats are both supported by religionists who come from widely diverse notions of what makes society function. Political opinions are often tied to how individuals view these religious perspectives.
On one hand is the concept that society is a collection of individuals whose only responsibility is to the self. The role of government, and every other societal institution, is to keep out of the way. This ideology is derived from a deeply embedded notion called Social Darwinism, which posits as its primary axiom, the survival of the fittest. The naturally strong are those fit to inherit the earth. Their genetic equipment is backed up with personal drive. These are the able who have the genetic substance and the will, which allow for progress through individual initiative. If ones religion is focused on personal salvation, this perspective is most often at root.
In modern times Social Darwinism has taken shape in the Objectivism of Ayn Rand. She spelled it out in 1962 newspaper article.
Every manis an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
While Social Darwinism has long since been refuted in much of the world, it still enjoys currency here among Americas religious and political right-wing.
The opposite understanding of culture is dominant among liberal religionists who see the good of society flowing directly from their religious convictions. While individual rights are not discounted, they lie embedded in a social fabric. We are all partners of one another and have a responsibility for one another, particularly the weak. No one is an island entire to itself. Every person is connected to every other person. It is the only way society can survive. The implications of this notion run all the way from the establishment of a defense force to food stamps.
This egalitarian notion flows from the religious roots which have guided much of American history. If one is honored, all are honored. Nobody is left out. The least able are served. Justice is a societal demand. If one suffers, all suffer. You probably are familiar with the texts. Interdependence lies at the core of this notion of religious ethics.
Beyond that, our Constitution defines a government of mutual concern and support. It begins. We the people, and goes on to detail what the people are going to do together through their elected officials. Nowhere does the Constitution suggest that we are no more than a collection of isolated individuals.
While we are not a Christian nation, most of our founders drew their perspectives from Christian roots. This religious dynamic found common cause with a non-religious dynamic springing from purely secular sensitivities. Religionists and non-religionists came together to form the basis of Americas ethical commitments. Our day calls for a similar joining of those who share a notion of an interdependent society, albeit from widely different religious and humanistic roots.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)teaching or practice.
I don't know if you are saying both sides of the political spectrum come from religion or not but if you are I disagree.
My thinking is that religion comes from man's understanding of right and wrong not the other way around. And I don't think the right really believes what they practice in their religion when it comes right down to it.
I think that religion distorts what is instinctive in human beings.
Here is an example sort of like the story of the good samaritan.
A gay man gets robbed and beat up. Along comes another person and sees the beat up man needs help and helps him out of instinctive reaction.
A second person comes along and out of instinctive reaction offers to help the beaten up man but somehow learns that the beaten man is gay and refuses to help him and goes on his way.
Now religion did not come into play with the first samaritan but did with the second. Both men instinctively felt they should help the beaten man and only one acted out of religion going against what he instinctively knew was right.
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)It makes the point of the post. It shows both sides of religion. Jesus clearly came down on the side of the compassionate--not on the side of the pious.
And of course, much that is good and right does not come just from religion. But much does!!
mzteris
(16,232 posts)darkstar3
(8,763 posts)Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)darkstar3
(8,763 posts)You have claimed that this school of thought is deeply rooted in religion. Which one? Please be specific.
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)rrneck
(17,671 posts)you have hit a new high in low when it comes to sectarian demagoguery.
When you characterize our political opponents as following a faith that emphasizes "responsibility to the self", you are accusing them of Sociopathy. And when you attribute that sociopathy to their religion, you are calling them crazy because they believe something other than you. That is a particularly ugly and pernicious mixture of politics and religion that has been used by demagogues and tyrants for thousands of years. Shit like that is exactly what used to get people burned alive.
Republicans are not crazy, Charles. They are not evil. They are human beings who happen to have different political objectives than us. Their "religion", no matter how you care to characterize it, is not so diametrically opposed to the all encompassing goodness you claim to believe that it can be so easily dismissed and relegated to your narrowly narcissistic judgementalism. Your effort to attach your political objectives to your faith lead you to characterize your political opponents as mentally defective as surely as any Social Darwinist.
You are trading on the worst possible interpretation of conservative ideology and setting it against the best possible interpretation of liberal ideology to curry favor with liberals. Such pandering is in itself distasteful, but when you attach that kind of manipulative behavior to religion, of which you are an outspoken proponent and in which you are an active player, you are engaging in a Social Darwinist competition for religious domination. You are trying to leverage religion to gain political power.
Thankfully, this is just a political message board and the influence of something like this ugly piece of shit is almost nil beyond the outrage it inspires in those that read it here. You should be ashamed of yourself for such pernicious drivel.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)that he would fight vigorously against the denigration of people for their beliefs, no matter where it occurred. Wonder how he's going to manage that here.
Silly me...he'll manage it the same way as always. Hit and run. Dump a truckload of manure, then run and hide. Nothing of the "meaningful discussion" that he and his ilk claim to want here.
Can't hide it forever. That shit won't float here.
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)When your daughter is a host in the group, you get a lot of latitude.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)I think. She may feel differently. I can be a real horse's ass when I want to be, and I don't mind telling people what I think, but I haven't seen any negative repercussions from cbayer as a mod or a host because of what I've said to Charles.
I'm cool with both cbayer and TMO as people and DUers, but there are some issues where I just don't pull punches.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I greatly appreciate your not buying into this BS.
I've got no problem with you either, even if we don't always agree. You come across as a person of integrity with very little secondary agenda. I respect that.
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)This has nothing to do with cbayer as a person and everything to do with her unwillingness to recognize that her dad is actively contributing to the toxic nature of this group.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)but I don't see that much toxicity. I disagree with him almost all the time because he's wrong almost all the time, but I don't see any rule violations. Even if he were the biggest troll in the world, what's cbayer supposed to do about it? Chew him out over dinner? If there's no TOS violation, there's no reason to run him off.
I guess he could be blocked from the group, but again I don't see a disruption because I don't sense malice in what he writes. TMO seems to want to do right by people and that makes him OK in my book. His methods are completely wrong, but I don't think right or wrong we can hold cbayer responsible for his opinions.
It seems to me that cbayer is doing a good job of walking a pretty fine line. I mean, he's her dad fer pit's sake. If I were in her place I'd be chewing ass all day long around here. Its part of my rich Celtic heritage.
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)Where did I say that Republicans were evil--just those flowing from a Randian perspective of individuality are religiously wrong? The rest comes out of your predispositions about all religion, and is not worth commenting on.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)Unless you'd care to expound on the religious origins of some viable third party.
I quoted you above and provided a link.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)xfundy
(5,105 posts)Once again, another huge, steaming load.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)rrneck
(17,671 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)rrneck
(17,671 posts)Actually, I've probably annoyed more atheists than believers here. And I have frequently defended faith and the religious practice. But this OP is so wrong I can't even begin to go there. If I'm outraged, I doubt he's going to get much help.
I think the bulk of DU is in the same gang on this one.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)I think that's the funniest thing you've ever posted.
Jim__
(14,077 posts)Human beings are social beings; we function as part of a group. We are also individuals with an individual consciousness and a set of individual desires. These two aspects of human nature are in conflict.
My impression is that in primitive societies where groups were small, the group concerns had to take precedence. If the group suffered, all the individuals within the group also suffered. As groups became larger, the fate of the overall group was not necessarily the fate of each individual or subgroup within the group; and people had an ability to move about and change the group that they lived in. Individuals had a new freedom that transcended the group.
Religion, being deeply embedded in human society, naturally plays a role in this conflict. Social Darwinism is a label that is a fair description of this conflict; but, the conflict existed before Darwin proposed his theory, and, in my opinion, will continue to exist long after the label has disappeared.
How should we live? Should we seek individual success or should we seek success for our group? Struggling with those questions is part of the human condition. They will be with us for as long as we remain human.
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)It is interesting to see "the six" flail around trying to find something to fuss about. And with all the vituperation, none of you bothers to discuss the posting. If I said the sun comes up in the East you would find something to moan about. As you realize I just never respond to a couple of you.
Well go to it. I am about to leave the country for a while, and to get the break I never do either e-mail or internet while I am away. I will be in places where I will have serious conversations with both theists and atheists. Concerning the latter, we will listen to each other and realize we are colleagues in the pursuit of a deeper wisdom and in what must be done to move society to a more just and peaceful place. It will be a relief from what has gone on here. I will return sometime the middle of August.
The focus of the weeks after that will be about the election. My task is to provide a rational religious alternative to the fundamentalists who indeed believe in personal salvation--both religiously and in society. That is what the post is really about. Human community is at the heart of authentic religion. "Where's mine" is the antithesis. So bye for now.
Cheers,
IMO
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I know you will be both inspired and inspiring. The situation in Turkey is particularly interesting right now and I look forward to getting your take on it.
Come back renewed and ready to fight for victory in November. I know we can do it, no matter how manny divisive and single minded people try to stop us.
Ciao,
cb
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)When you say "no matter how manny [sic] divisive and single minded people try to stop us." Are you referring to the fundamentalists to whom your dad is trying to present a religious alternative or "the six" who didn't post adulations in this thread?
Side note: It's ironic how you label whichever group you meant as divisive as part of a divisive comment of your own in reply to a divisive post by TMO.
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)Instead, you post long winded diatribes based on half-truths and shaky logic and then refuse to answer the most simple clarifying questions because they're "gotchas" or because you don't like the person asking the question.
I have to say that I was pleasantly surprised with this latest post from you when I didn't read any deliberate attacks on non-believers.
BTW, sorry to find something else to "fuss about," but what makes a religion "authentic?" Con you give some examples of authentic and inauthentic religions?
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)I should have responded so it would have been "the seven."
Damn it.
onager
(9,356 posts)Obviously non-believers are nearly twice as powerful.
Sophisticated Theology in action!
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)While mzteris asks a very good question, I don't recall them as a regular participant in discussion Charles' previous ramblings. It seems that he just counted the number of people who didn't fawn over his irreproachable wisdom and assigned a label.
dimbear
(6,271 posts)Of course in that much time we might settle all the religious arguments, but possibly not.
mr blur
(7,753 posts)How would your fellow Americans get through the election without you?
Are you really so unaware of how self-important you always sound?
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)Too bad he didn't get much done to stop Prop. 8
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)even worse, Christian roots, there is nothing in Christianity about democracy, republicanism, egalitarianism, etc. These values are drawn from ancient Greek and Roman culture, Enlightenment philosophers, and other secular sources.
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)Romans 13:1-4
But maybe I'm being unfair, let's take a look at something written much later when everyone would have known about the abuses of Nero. 1 Peter was supposed to have been written some time later, possibly even during the persecution of Christians by Domitian.
1 Peter 2:13-16
Oh...
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)LeftishBrit
(41,208 posts)but I wonder whether it may be more of a matter of people and groups using their religious - and other philosophical - beliefs to fuel their existing attitudes to society, rather than the attitudes flowing out of their beliefs.
In any case, I fully agree that:
'Our day calls for a similar joining of those who share a notion of an interdependent society, albeit from widely different religious and humanistic roots.'