Is liberalism a religion?

[TallahasseeGrannie]

No, I haven't read "Godless" by Ann Caustic but reading the Amazon reviews made me think. Does she have a point?

Discuss amongst yourself, in the words of Linda Silverman.

[rock]

1. No

Anybody care to give a rebuttal?

[MrModerate]

2. For me (as for most people, I think)

Religion requires a supernatural component (generally a non-corporeal being or beings) to lend authority to the beliefs being professed. In that sense, no, liberalism isn't a religion, any more than atheism, communism, or nihilism.

[progdonkey]

10. I'll have to disagree with you...

Religions don't have to necessarily include a supernatural being, but rather be based on faith, rather than reason and observable evidence. That faith doesn't have to be in a supernatural being, but may be in a Utopia, for instance. I would actually therefore classify Communism as a religion, as it is utopian and for a person to be a communist the person needs to believe things that go against all evidence of human nature, social constructs, economics, etc. Just the same way Libertarianism would to me be a religion: everything is okay, THE MARKET SHALL RIGHT ITSELF.

A religion is defined not by the belief in a supernatural being but by its being founded on belief itself and not reason backed up by evidence.

[MrModerate]

21. Nah, I can't buy it . . .

Faith can cover far too much territory that is distinctly nonreligious (as in, say, faith that your mother loves you, faith that people are generally good, faith that the earthquake won't hit today, etc., etc.) for it to be the determining factor of whether a belief is religious or not.

Certainly, all religions that I can think of do *require* faith (IMO, to sustain that belief in the supernatural component), but faithiness alone doesn't strike me as central to the definition.

[sinkingfeeling]

3. No. And why does everything have to be a religion?

[Warpy]

4. I'm sorry, Grannie, but religious people tend to describe everything

in terms of religion, or belief, or doctrine. A visit to the A&A forum today will net you a whole thread on that one.

Liberalism is a philosophy, a way of looking at the world, and a politics of how to treat one's fellow citizens, all of them. Many liberals may BE religious people, but it's not essential to be religious in order to be liberal. It's also possible to be religious and still be conservative, although one wonders how closely they've read the teachings of their religions in order to achieve that sort of mental tapdancing around major tenets.

Some of us out here have thought things through and developed personal ethics, instead.

[ozone_man]

13. Yes, liberalism is a philosophy.

I think in normal contexts, i.e., religious contexts, it follows definition 1 or 2 here. Definition 3 is the casual sense as in my religion is nature or sports or gardening or any interest that I devote a lot of time to.

religion

• noun 1 the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. 2 a particular system of faith and worship. 3 a pursuit or interest followed with devotion.

— ORIGIN originally in the sense life under monastic vows: from Latin religio ‘obligation, reverence’.

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/religion?view=uk

But I think it is possible to be dogmatic about certain political views that is similar to having a religion, by accepting views on faith without examination, without being based on suficient evidence or without applying reason. In that sense, it might be described as quasi-religious views. Totalitarian communism might be an example of that.

[Finder]

5. To some it is...

I think there are those who need "isms" to follow. That said, Liberalism is a set of principles that many "ism" followers do not understand.

[TechBear_Seattle]

6. Yes, with a proviso

Liberalism is a religion only if you define "religion" to include all acts that lead to greater self-awareness and a deeper understanding of one's relationship to others and one's place in the universe, with a resulting increase in empathy for all living things.

Which begs the question: "What would that make conservatism?"

[Atman]

7. No, that is silly.

It is an "anti-religion," if anything. That is not to say that liberalism is "anti-religion." It is simply that liberalism requires and open and analytical mind, and religion requires just the opposite.

[Master Mahon]

8. Does she have a point?

Yes! It's the one in the middle of her shoulders where most people's heads are. Her 'point' leaves no room for lucid, rational thought!

[bloom]

9. If it is

so is conservatism.

I think there is a way of thinking about how people frame their ideas, morality, one thing or another as a "religion".

But the conservatives take it to more of an extreme when - because of their leaders - they start wanting to codify what they see as moral issues into laws.

It may be that subconsciously they know that liberalism is more moral. It more closely follows the golden rule, "Do to others as you would have them do to you". And having a government that is run on that principle instead of "Celebrate the rights of the rich" is better for everyone in general (but maybe not the rich).

Liberalism controls the rights of the rich - it looks after the needs of the poor - it's concerned with fairness. And conservatism is for the greedy - the me, me, me, let's all be the same religion (as long as you are in power - and to encourage those who aren't to go along).

[Finder]

11. You have mischaracterized Liberalism and Conservatism...

in your post. Liberalism does not try to control the rights of anyone, nor is conservatism only suitable for the greedy.

[bloom]

12. There are conservatives

who think they have the "right" to keep most or all of their money and to exploit others and think that they are doing others a favor when they do so and justify it in endless arguments. That was the only "right" to which I was facetiously referring.


Now - if you want to make some argument for the "non-greedy" Republicans - go right ahead.

[Finder]

18. What is labeled conservatism is just as incorrect as what is labeled...

liberalism in today's divisive political climate. Thus so many irrational arguments.

The majority in this country do not follow the principles of either philosophy but do hold a few from both in different areas of their life. That is why there is so much infighting within the parties as well. Not all Dems are liberals nor are all Repubs conservative.

Yet, there are purists on both sides who treat their chosen philosophy as a religion as far as wanting others to see their truth as the only truth.

[varkam]

14. I don't think so...

Cause if it is, we're doing a piss-poor job! We don't have any churches built, we haven't applied for tax exempt status, we don't even have a guy who wears a funny hat.

In all seriousness, liberalism is just a philosophical standpoint. It's not an ideology and it's not a doctrine. Liberalism doesn't tell you what you should do about individual issues, but it's a frame through which you view those issues which tend to lead to the traditional "liberal" conclusion. For example, liberalism doesn't necessarily hold that the government should be responsible for getting people off the streets. What liberalism (at least, IMHO) holds is that government should be compassionate and caring for all it's citizens--rich, poor, black, white, ill, healthy, fat, skinny, etc. Now that doesn't mean that government ought to erect homeless shelters, but it's a natural progression from that viewpoint that the government ought to care (at least in some tangible sense) for all it's citizens. After all, the citizens are supposed to be the ones who hold the real power.

Conservatism is just another philosophical standpoint. From what I understand, it seems to be steeped in the "bootstrap" mentality (i.e. small government, plenty of individual freedoms) etc. I know this might be unpopular here, but I think conservatism--in it's purest form--isn't all that bad of a philosophical standpoint to subscribe too. But, that's kind of the same problem that communism had: it looks great on paper, but falls substantially short in practice. The problem with conservatism is that the conservatives today aren't really conservatives. They don't really believe in small government. They don't really believe in individual freedom. Sure, they give lip service to things like that, but the actions of conservatives are a much better record - big BIG (not to mention inefficient) government, rolling back of personal freedom and civil liberties (which pure conservatives are supposed to be champions for). So now it's fallen to the liberals to fight for civil liberties as popular conservatism is changing; hence the term "neo-conservative".

Maybe in a few years we'll see the term "neo-liberal" used more and more. Who knows, maybe it'll flip-flop and liberalism will eventually look a lot more like conservatism does now and conservatism visa versa.

[bloom]

15. The trouble with some conservatives that I know of

is they think that things like care for the mentally ill, indigent, old, etc. should come from Churches - or that at least all of the money should flow from the government through Churches. (Not everyone is going to be able to do the bootstrap thing - though some conservatives seem to forget that.)

Liberalism is willing to skip the Churches.

I suppose that is where some people get off with saying that liberalism is like a religion - because liberals are willing to have secular institutions take the place of Church sponsored enterprises.

That - and they don't recognize liberal religions as having validity. As if you wouldn't have both liberalism AND religion together.

[salvorhardin]

19. Actually at the core of liberalism

Is the concept of personal liberty; i.e. the idea that the individual should be free from restraint in speech or action. Beyond that though liberalism as a philosophy is rather amorphous and fluid and up until the mid-1950s, even conservative politicians were more than happy to call themselves liberals or speak of the 'liberal tradition'. Even Eisenhower referred to himself as a "militant liberal". I'd say that liberal in the modern sense means supporting freedom of thought and speech, limited and transparent government and a market economy. Beyond that thouh anything and everything is possible and really everybody from Libertarians to Democratic Socialists to the Republican Party (upto the 1960s, possibly 1970s) could be considered liberal. Now while somebody like Nixon was not my kind of liberal he was in fact a liberal as much as Johnson, Roosevelt or Lincoln were.

Oh, and since we're talking about liberalism, don't forget to check out the latest edition of Carnival of the Liberals at Expert Opinion.

[varkam]

25. Shameless plug

:)

I guess I can't really bitch too much, since something that I wrote is up there.

I agree that presently the concept of personal liberty is at the core of the liberal philosophy, but I think that's a response to the evolution of the conservative movement. In other words, I don't think it was always like that. I tend to think that liberalism used to be a very different way of thinking about the relationship between government and the citizenry from conservativsm. Now that neo-cons are very much in power, the fight has become less about what government ought to do and more and individual liberties. But that's just my .02.

[salvorhardin]

26. Actually, AFAIK the concept of personal liberty -- freedom

Is the historical root of liberalism. But you're right, back in the old Enlightenment days that mean something a little different. It was about the relationship of the people to government. Not necessarily about democracy (not originally), but definitely about the extent of government and how it should behave toward its' citizenry. And if you think the neo-cons are about personal liberty, you're wrong. Just realize when I say neo-cons, I mean the Wolfowitz/Norquist crowd with their collective heads up their collective asses. It's amazing what conclusions both radical Islamic fundamentalists and radical far-right wing extremists derived from Strauss and Fukuyama but it's not quite what I would have derived (at least from the limited reading of Fukuyama I've done -- haven't touched Strauss yet). And the Ayn Rand crowd came up with yet another variant on what personal liberty meant.

BTW: It's not really a shameless plug. I just organize Carnival of the Liberals. Since the carnival travels to a different host every bi-week, and that host decides which 10 submissions (and we usually get 20-40 every two weeks) to include. In the 28 weeks (14 editions) that CotL has run, I think a submission from one of the Neural Gourmet bloggers has been in maybe only 30% of those editions (not that I get ad revenue or anything from NG). It's really more about building and promoting a community of liberal thinkers and exposing people to the best blogging from a liberal perspective possible. It's also about encouraging excellence among liberal bloggers. Now for anyone who's reading this, go read Varkam's post along with all the other excellent posts at Expert Opinion.

[varkam]

28. I was kidding about the shameless plug bit

Which I was hoping the smiley would communicate. Sorry if I offended.

I absolutely don't think that the neo-cons are all about personal liberty - they are about imposing their view of the world on the rest of us because they are so certain they are correct. Not a lot of personal freedom there. Traditional conservatives have been much more about personal freedom in the past, but they are a fast dying breed. That's out. Neo-cons are in. As I said, a lot of lip service is paid to personal liberty, etc. They don't really mean it.

[salvorhardin]

29. Oh, I didn't take offense

I was just taking an opportunity to do my usual riff on blog carnivals and community development.

As far as your comment about neocons and liberty, I must have read that wrong. Sorry.

[Lilith Velkor]

16. Only if it requires you to pay attention to Coulter

Seriously, why do so many people care what she thinks?

[applegrove]

17. Oh my god. They are going to get rid of all forms of political discource.

They are chaging the language of everything.

[Orrex]

20. No -- religion requires belief in or worship of the supernatural

Supernatural means reincarnation or a divine creator or alien genetic engineers or Body Thetans or the ineffable wisdom of Ayn Rand.

Liberalism does not entail belief in nor worship of anything supernatural.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

22. Isn't Budhism a religion?

And I thought they were basically atheists.

I'm not agreeing with her..haven't read the book. I'm trying to work through the concept without messing up "my beautiful mind."

[SPKrazy]

24. My Understanding Of Buddhism Is (At least Tibetan Buddhists)

pray to many deities.

[Orrex]

27. Reincarnation is part of some forms of Buddhism, and that's supernatural

They might not believe in a supreme being, but the moment that the supernatural enters the picture...

[SPKrazy]

23. No, It Is A Political Philosophy

not a religion

[Odin2005]

30. No, but Marxism and Libertarianism are.

Marxism is basically secularized Judeo-Christian Messianic Eschantology, with the Capitalists as Satan, the Communist Party as the Second Coming of Christ, and the Communist paridise as the New Earth.

Right-Wing Libertarianism, especially in it's Randian form, is a degenerate, nihilistic self-worship; basically Satanism.

[Lilith Velkor]

33. Similarity is not identity.

Marxism was meant to replace religion, but that doesn't make it a religion. It's just a belief system.

It is interesting how Rand's belief system mutated into modern Satanism. But they aren't the same, because Objectivism is a philosophy (a pretty vile one at that) and Satanism is a religion.

[NMMNG]

31. I don't think she has a point

I read several of the reviews and from what I saw people think Ann is full of hot air, as usual. Several reviewers commented that she made claims with no facts to back them up--typical of her type.

I think it's just more right-wing hate rhetoric designed to sell books. Call liberals godless while calling liberalism a religion. The ultimate oxymoron. :eyes:

[onager]

32. This comment about Repugs tickled me...

One day I was talking to an Egyptian co-worker about American politics. (For those who haven't "met" me, I'm working in Egypt for a while.)

Now this particular Egyptian had spent some time being trained at our facility in Los Angeles. He said one day while he was out at the pool in his hotel, an American struck up a conversation with him.

The American loved G.W. Bush and thought we had done "the right thing" by invading Iraq. Etc. The whole party line.

After telling me this, the Egyptian said: "I always thought the Republicans were an American political party. But this fellow made them sound more like a religion."