Many have wondered why a site called The Politic winds up talking about religion so much. There are very good reasons for this. Firstly, religion drives some of the most significant events occurring in the world around us. The question of Islam is affecting world politics to a level unprecedented. Understanding the difference between various Islamic sects from Sunni to Shi’ite to Ismaili to Wahhabi is critical for the discerning citizen today trying to understand what drives people to terror attacks and fatwas.
But at the same time, Christianity - what it means, what it claims, and how it affects those who follow Jesus - is big news too. Many people who discuss religious extremism like to compare radical Islam to fundamental Christianity. But is this a fair comparison? Is it appropriate for TV shows like Law and Order to product episodes that paint an extremist Christian group stoning people as a conceivable reality? These types of questions cannot be answered without an understanding of what religions teach and how they differ.
Sadly, religious literacy is becoming rarer and rarer in the 21st Century. Unless you are an active follower of this or that religion, you may have no idea what they actually believe and how that affects them. It used to be that Universities, as part of their goal of a “well-rounded” education, would make mandatory comparative religion courses. Few now do. Even the options are scarce. It also used to be that the average citizen knew what the Bible said. They knew the content, they had memorized passages, they knew the stories, they knew the characters, their virtues and their failings. They may not have been followers of Christianity, but they knew what it was about. I am a part of the generation that came after. I didn’t even know that King Solomon was a Biblical character until I was 16 years old. I knew the name Jesus, but I couldn’t have named any of his 12 followers. I had heard the names, Hezekiah, Ezekiel, and Jehosaphat, but I thought they came from tales of the Old West, not from the Kingdom of Israel ca. 1200 BC.
People think they know what Christianity is and stands for, but they know it second, or third hand. It is something their parents, or grandparents believe, and that’s because they’re old and stuck in their ways. They’ve probably never even asked them what their faith means to them or why they believe it. However, now more than ever, a knowledge of what people believe and why they believe it is critical. What makes today’s situation so concerning for many is that the public thinks they know what Christianity is about, and so makes judgements (incidentally, the exact same judgements they rail against from “Christians” who are thought to be “judgemental”) based on erroneous information or simple ignorance. If people acknowledged their ignorance, the problem wouldn’t be so bad. It’s the fact that people think they know but don’t that can and will lead to bigger and bigger problems and conflicts between those who are religious and those who are not.
The reality is, for those many who are religious - whether Jewish, Christian, Muslim, or Buddhist, their faith doesn’t just play a part in their life, it defines their life. Their religion informs not only their daily decisions but also governs what issues in the public sphere are important to them. At first glance, this could look extreme, but take a step back. What do you believe? Everyone believes in something. If you don’t believe in a God or Gods, then you are your own god. Everything you do, everything you consider important stems from your belief in yourself as the primary purpose and priority in your life. This is not extremism. This is internal consistency. To condemn another for having consistency with their faith is to condemn yourself and your own consistency with what you believe in to be important.
This is a very important concept. People who are religious have every right both to express their faith informed convictions in public and to hold public office. To deny them such is to discriminate against people by religion, which is expressly forbidden by the very tenets of freedom this nation was founded upon. Yet, we have seen in the ridicule of Stockwell Day’s leadership campaign and the more subtle statements made against many politicians of faith in recent elections, that there is an undercurrent of opposition and censorship against those who exercise these fundamental freedoms. An opinion is an opinion, and it should be irrelevant whether the opinion was arrived at via reading the Bible or via reading Rene Descartes.
Which leads me to my last point. Debate surrounding abortion, and also surrounding the gay marriage issue has often been framed by leftist writers and speakers as being about the “religious” trying to impose “their morality” on “the rest of us”. This is a false assertion because there is no such thing as a faith-neutral political position. We are all informed by our beliefs, and so our political positions all have equal weight. There are many people who do not believe in the God of the Jews or the God of the Christians or the God of Islam, who were and are opposed to gay marriage, or abortion for that matter. It is ludicrous to suggest that all arguments against those two issues, or any other issue for that matter, are only founded upon the principle of “imposing your religious belief” on people.
This is not to say that there aren’t people who are Christians, or Jews, or Muslims (I should have said earlier, these are not meant to be taken as an exhaustive list, but just as examples) who seek to impose their morality on everyone. Sadly it is true that there are traditions in Christianity who have in the past sought to implement “Christendom” (and most Muslims today still appear to ascribe to the belief that Islamic Law or Sharia Law should be the law of all lands). I believe that this has no place in politics myself. However, there is a big difference between believing that certain political positions are in fact quantifiably the best for society, and believing it is “God’s Will” to impose certain political positions on everyone regardless of their religion. The religious have every right to state what they think is best, and vote for what they think is best, regardless of the reason - that is what democracy is all about.
It should also be noted that much of what we here in Canada considers leftist, socialist style government has its foundations not in Marxism but in the social gospel movement of the early 20th Century, where many churches began to support governmental advocacy and service to the poor and the ill. Previous to this, churches did this work apart from government. During that period, for the sake of efficiency, advocacy was made to centralize such social programs to prevent redundancy and make it easier on everyone. Because at the time, church and country were much more synonymous than now, nobody minded giving more in taxes if they didn’t need to give to support the program offered through a church. The best illustration of this trend is the fact that Tommy Douglas was a baptist preacher. They believed at that time, that making the government more Christian would make society more Christian - the Christendom idea mentioned above. The ideals they held of charity and mercy are admirable, but the question about the best means to go about them are political. Hence, they need to be discussed.
So, what I am trying to say is that while this site is called “The Politic”, I do believe that religion has a place and should have a voice in the political discussion. We need to make clear for people what is at stake, and also communicate what beliefs are and mean so that the dialogue can be with understanding instead of ignorance. Discussion is about understanding the other side and finding common ground. Ruling the other side out of hand simply because your faith is different from theirs only results in alienation, xenophobia and fracturing of the body politic.
Abattoir wrote:
A well-written post, Shane. Thank you for an interesting read.
I have no problem with the religious voting or holding office. That is their indisputable right, and it would be a VERY slippery slope to argue taking that away from them. It is also, however, my right as a citizen to voice when I believe a politician’s views are dictated solely by religion, and that I feel that is inappropriate. I would not support removing anyone from office for their religious views. The voters can do that if necessary. :)
I found this comment interesting: ‘most Muslims today still appear to ascribe to the belief that Islamic Law or Sharia Law should be the law of all lands’. On what do you base this belief? Are you including all Muslims around the world, or are you speaking of those in our society?
Personally, I have only known 1 Muslim who ascribed to this belief, and many who do not. It’s not a belief that I have ever found to have much traction with anyone outside a vocal minority.
Posted on 09-Apr-08 at 2:56 pm | Permalink
Shane Edwards wrote:
I am willing to concede that it may be a generalization. However, Sharia Law implementation does seem to be spreading all around the world, and I don’t see any countries, once engaged in it, backing away or distancing themselves from it once in.
Plus, check me if I am wrong, but isn’t Sharia mandated by the Quran? I mean, if your holy books says it should be law, if you take your religion seriously, then you should be making efforts to implement it.
Before the comparison is made, nowhere in the New Testament does it suggest that Abrahamic, Mosaic, or any other law should be forced upon unbelievers. In fact, it makes several references to living under other laws, it is never assumed that Christian “laws” should be forced upon everyone by the state.
Posted on 09-Apr-08 at 3:06 pm | Permalink
dalton wrote:
“if your holy books says it should be law, if you take your religion seriously, then you should be making efforts to implement it.”
You may have noted a serious decline in the number of witches being executed, but no major decline in practitioners of Judaism?
Our holy books incorporate law, myth, history, custom, culture, and tradition, and wise practitioners of their religion understand that. Unfortunately, as has been noted by a better writer than me, “the Devil can cite scripture for his purpose.”
Posted on 09-Apr-08 at 3:19 pm | Permalink
Matthew wrote:
Dalton, do you have proof that every holy book incorporates each of those components?
Posted on 09-Apr-08 at 8:20 pm | Permalink
one-timer wrote:
I think that Shane Edwards makes good points in his first half. Religion does drive events. “Religious literacy” has plummeted. Christians are misrepresented. Internal consistency cannot be criticized.
I have a few problems with the paragraph that begins, “This is a very important concept.” Largely I still agree with Shane, however, so I will go on to the next paragraph, Shane’s last point.
I object strongly to Shane’s last point. As Shane says, there is no such thing as a faith-neutral political position. As he says, leftist writers often frame the debate in terms of the “religious” trying to impose “their morality” on “the rest of us.” Of course, these leftists are just as much trying to impose their morality (or immorality) on those who are not leftists.
The terms are confusing. MORALITY is one of them, and RELIGION is another. Sometimes I mean true religion when I use the word RELIGION. Other times, probably more often, I am referring to a response to God. God has told us who He is, and in some way we respond; ignoring Him is a response, so everybody is religious. Most people probably use the word RELIGION to refer to devout dealings with an (imagined) supernatural being bigger and better than themselves.
A few centuries ago, deists relegated God to the beginning of history and the outer confines of the universe. Today some Westerners work from the Modern assumption (third definition of religion) that religious people are impractical and primitive. God doesn’t really have dealings with men, so religious people, if their beliefs are marked by internal consistency, are unfit to make public decisions involving high stakes.
Other Westerners, like Shane I think, assert a Postmodern equality of religions. This notion leads Shane to say, “We are all informed by our beliefs, and so our political positions all have equal weight.” In this statement Shane seems to have proclaimed his religion, not a religion that ostensibly desires God’s will on earth, but the religion of secular humanism and the political position of unlimited democracy. If so, Shane is obviously committed to his religion, but that religion is not internally consistent because he imposes it on the rest of us when he says he should not.
In the end, the two positions on religion can come down to the same thing. Those who claim that all religions deserve a voice do not really believe in any of them, except the one of their own making, which–to avoid the appearance of religion–posits no god except man himself. So religion is harmless as long as nobody takes it too seriously. Internal consistency is a fault.
Consider this statement of Shane’s: “There is a big difference between believing that certain political positions are in fact quantifiably the best for society, and believing it is “God’s Will” to impose certain political positions on everyone regardless of their religion.” The statement is nonsensical! Shane contradicts it by implying that God’s will is the will of the majority. The voice of the people is the voice of God. He proceeds from the assumption of democracy, which becomes his highest authority. In the end the two alternatives are really one and the same.
Life is religion. Living necessitates culture, which means religion. And no belief is real belief unless it is acted upon. If it isn’t acted upon, it’s hypocrisy.
I am a Christian. I want to “legislate” “my” morality on everybody else. I believe in it because I believe in the God who established it. Morality is simply the observance of what’s best for us. God made us for Himself, and we are not at peace until we find our rest in Him. God knows what’s best for us, and He’s told us most succinctly in the Ten Commandments.
I do not want to legislate my morality on everyone else. I want the civil government to legislate–and legislation obviously applies to all citizens–according to God’s morality, true morality, the only morality, MORALITY. Is legislation part of the government’s job? Certainly, because the civil government’s purpose is to protect its citizens and punish evil-doers. How do I know? Well, that’s a conclusion that’s reached in Christian theology (e.g. Romans 13). No doubt the same conclusion has been reached by others with different authorities.
There is no such thing as a right to abortion. Abortionists should be punished for murdering. There is no such thing as gay marriage. The government is malicious to encourage sexual perversion. And I’m not convinced that there is any such thing as religious extremism. There is religious hypocrisy.
As to Shane, he may or may not be a Christian. I’ve only read this one piece of his. I question the consistency of some of the out-workings of his faith, however. We all display many inconsistencies. Please point out mine (especially as I have written this quite quickly, at least for me).
Posted on 10-Apr-08 at 1:48 am | Permalink
dalton wrote:
“Dalton, do you have proof that every holy book incorporates each of those components?”
Well, not having read “every holy book” on the planet, I couldn’t say for sure. The holy books I’m personally familiar with (the old and new testaments in various translations, the Koran, some Gnostic texts, the Bhagavad Gita and others certainly do.
My point is that the old testament offers up a rather large number of instructions, examples and prohibitions which, as far as I know, have never been rescinded by Yahweh, but which are no longer practiced by even the most traditional of Jews.
Posted on 10-Apr-08 at 4:26 am | Permalink
one-timer wrote:
Reformed theology (Christian) is consistent. The Torah (first five books of the Old Testament, as compiled or written by Moses) contains many laws in three categories: moral, ceremonial, and civil.
The moral law (the Ten Commandments) applies to people everywhere, regardless of nationality or era. God is unchanging.
The ceremonial law pointed forward to atonement by the Messiah. When Jesus Christ eventually came, that ceremonial law was superseded. Why keep a picture when you have the Person? “I will not leave you as orphans,” He said at the last supper, “I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever.” (John 14:16-18). The shadows and types are obsolete.
The civil law was for national Israel. Jesus Christ promised to build His Church, and with its expansion after His ascension, theocratic Israel no longer existed. The Jews as a nation had rejected the Messiah: “His blood be on us and on our children” (Matt. 27:25). God rejected them as a special people, breaking down the barrier between them and the Gentiles and welcoming believers everywhere regardless of their nationality. After A.D. 70, the Jewish nation ceased to exist.
Christians observe the moral law but not the ceremonial law or civil law. That does not mean that the ceremonial law and civil law are not useful in teaching or do not contains principles of justice useful for any nation. They are God’s wisdom and a record of His relationship with His people in the Old Testament.
Posted on 10-Apr-08 at 5:29 am | Permalink
dalton wrote:
Your argument rests on a few premises which are simply statements of personal faith. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but don’t mistake your own belief structure for either objective truth or iron clad logic.
I doubt, for example, that most Jews would agree their ceremonial law was superseded by Christ’s arrival, or that “after A.D. 70, the Jewish nation ceased to exist.”
Posted on 10-Apr-08 at 5:39 am | Permalink
one-timer wrote:
Exactly, Dalton. I am saying what Christians BELIEVE. Anybody who seriously believes something treats it as objective truth. And objective truth there is. Jesus Christ said, “I am the truth, the way, and the life. No man comes to the Father but through Me” (John 14:6). If you are a religious Jew, you will regard that statement as blasphemy, even as many of the Jews of Jesus’ time did.
I think that my previous comment was written to address Shane’s comment that “if your holy books says it should be law, if you take your religion seriously, then you should be making efforts to implement it.” As you have said, however, there is such a thing as right interpretation. The devil can cite Scripture for his own purpose, as he did with both the first Adam (in the garden) and the last Adam (in the desert).
I guess I had better be careful not to confuse internal consistency with objective truth. The former is evidence but not proof for the latter. Logically, there are maybe many religions with internal consistency–including Christianity–but Christianity is either true to the exclusion of all other religions, or it is false. The character of God and the claims of Jesus Christ allow no other alternatives.
Posted on 10-Apr-08 at 6:21 am | Permalink
Shane wrote:
One Timer, I sincerely hope you change your name soon. I want to address your points. I have a busy morning ahead of me though so it may take some time. I find it very interesting that you doubt my faith because I take a pragmatic view of politics and political discourse. Rest assured I consider myself well and truly saved by grace through faith, and while I believe that my faith influences every aspect of my life, there is something to be said for showing respect and humility to people of other faith traditions whatever they are. That is what informs me to write about the relative or as you say “postmodern” view of religions from a political perspective.
More later.
Posted on 10-Apr-08 at 7:13 am | Permalink
dalton wrote:
“Christianity is either true to the exclusion of all other religions, or it is false.”
The same can be said of Judaism and Islam, I supposed, or of any religion that views its revelation to be exclusive, final and definitive.
The problem is that our holy books include both grand, near-universal moral precepts (many of which are shared by most the atheists and agnostics of my acquaintance) and prohibitions reflecting tribal traditions rooted in a specific society and codified at a particular point in time. We seem to recognize that in reality (as noted, even the most traditional Jews very rarely burn witches); but there’s considerable disagreement over which category some biblical passages fall into.
Posted on 10-Apr-08 at 7:16 am | Permalink
one-timer wrote:
Sure, and thank you. I’ll be glad to be challenged or corrected. At least, I think so. I just have no use for the dishonest notion of “the equality of all religions.” I realize that you’ve never said that, but you have left me confused.
I called myself “one-timer” because I shouldn’t spend more time on this now. I’ll reply to any comments you make, though, with at least acknowledgement that I’ve read them.
Posted on 10-Apr-08 at 8:12 am | Permalink
one-timer wrote:
Sorry, my last comment was meant for Shane, but it could be for Dalton, too.
Posted on 10-Apr-08 at 8:25 am | Permalink
dalton wrote:
Your phrase on “dishonest notion of “the equality of all religions” is intriguing. Certainly adherents of most of the world’s faiths view their religion as inherently and transcendently superior to others.
However, I don’t think I was arguing for the “equality” of religions. I personally find Christianity, for instance, to be a much grander intellectual, philosophical and aesthetic achievement than, let’s say, the rather more limited cosmology of the Dogons.
On the other hand, I don’t share Anne Coulter’s view that Jews are just larval Christians who got stuck.
Posted on 10-Apr-08 at 8:52 am | Permalink
Charles Anthony wrote:
I want to address one thing in the Opening Post:
This is universally true for all people no matter what their faith (or lack thereof) happens to be.
Democracy is a religion.
In fact, anybody who endorses government authority of any kind has made statism part of their own personal religion.
———
If you pay attention to Richard Dawkins and his flock beyond their science, you will find a culture of people who worship the state like it was some divine entity.
Posted on 10-Apr-08 at 10:07 am | Permalink
C wrote:
One Timer:
“I guess I had better be careful not to confuse internal consistency with objective truth. The former is evidence but not proof for the latter. Logically, there are maybe many religions with internal consistency–including Christianity–but Christianity is either true to the exclusion of all other religions, or it is false. The character of God and the claims of Jesus Christ allow no other alternatives.”
So the filioque clause — true or false? Please give your reasoning, and show how it has always been internally consistent within Christianity.
Posted on 10-Apr-08 at 10:11 am | Permalink
dalton wrote:
“Democracy is a religion. In fact, anybody who endorses government authority of any kind has made statism part of their own personal religion.”
You may be using a definition of the word “religion” that I’m unfamiliar with. To me it implies a system of beliefs and values informed by a supernatural power. Wnat’s your definition?
Posted on 10-Apr-08 at 2:18 pm | Permalink
Shane wrote:
I consider a religion as any overarching philosophy that suggests origin and purpose for your life, which is the primary influence for your personal ethics.
Posted on 10-Apr-08 at 3:17 pm | Permalink
dalton wrote:
I don’t think that’s a definition that most folks would agree with: “religion” is generally held to incorporate a supernatural element and a spiritual or sacred dimension.
To take Charles’ example, for instance - I accept the intrusion of state power into my life in exchange for the benefits I accrue through participation as a citizen in that state. Charles seems to be suggesting that this is a “religious” belief. I’m not sure how.
Posted on 10-Apr-08 at 3:30 pm | Permalink
Matthew wrote:
dalton, you claim that there are myths though (and I’m presuming that the logic you present between your two prior comments is indicative of what you believe) — do you have proof that the OT/NT or any other holy book is mythological or have I misread that particular claim?
Posted on 10-Apr-08 at 3:57 pm | Permalink
Charles Anthony wrote:
Dalton, you said: “I accept the intrusion of state power into my life in exchange for yadda yadda yadda” and that is fine. You can accept whatever the Hell you want. What you accept for yourself is irrelevant. That is not democracy.
Democracy is much much more than that. It is an imposition upon other people. Unless you are acting in direct self-defense from violent aggression, you better have a damn good reason to justify imposing your way or beliefs on somebody else.
I have not heard any justification for modern democracy which is any different from a belief in the supernatural or just simply a foolish irrational belief.
Posted on 10-Apr-08 at 4:25 pm | Permalink
C wrote:
Charles:
Wouldn’t a good argument for democracy be that any alternative would have to be imposed through violent aggression, and that imposing your ideas on others is (as you’ve said) justified if you’re facing violent aggression?
Posted on 10-Apr-08 at 5:06 pm | Permalink
Scott from Winnipeg wrote:
Charles channels Rand, on a thread about the undeniable existence of Christ and the irrefutable position of Christendom as the world’s only pure and true order.
Seriously, this place has the best damn unintended irony available anywhere.
I don’t even have The Onion bookmarked anymore.
Posted on 10-Apr-08 at 5:37 pm | Permalink
Charles Anthony wrote:
C,
In answer to your question: No, that would not be a good argument. That would actually be worse than just assuming the assertion is axiomatically (translation: by fiat) correct. Your argument is bad because democracy is imposed by violent aggression anyway.
Scott,
You are free to interpret my writing any way you want or to the best of your ability — whichever comes first. I would never deny you the right to amuse yourself in either manner.
Posted on 10-Apr-08 at 6:50 pm | Permalink
Shane Edwards wrote:
“on a thread about the undeniable existence of Christ and the irrefutable position of Christendom as the world’s only pure and true order.”
Scoot, Scott. If you don’t even have the cognitive functions to grasp the post as stating the exact opposite of your understanding, you should just let the adults talk and go play with your tinker toys.
Posted on 10-Apr-08 at 7:42 pm | Permalink
Scott from Winnipeg wrote:
You’re quite right Shane.
I had confused your post with Matthew’s. I first read your post earlier today and felt compelled to comment after reading Anthony’s Randisms this evening,losing track of which post on religion it was under.
My apologies.
Posted on 10-Apr-08 at 9:49 pm | Permalink
C wrote:
Charles,
Let me see if I’ve got the line argument straight here (I’m paraphrasing for brevity and clarity, so if you think I’m wrong with any of the steps, please say so):
You said:
Democracy is bad because it imposes ideas onto other people.
Imposing your ideas on others is bad unless you’re faced by violent agression.
BUT, I said:
Any other alternative would have to be brought about by violent agression, and therefore imposing your ideas on others is justified.
So you said:
Democracy is imposed through violent agression anyway, so it’s bad.
Now I’m not entirely convinced that democracy is imposed through violent agression, but let’s assume for the time being that it is. Wouldn’t this leave us in a position of stalemate where either a new system or democracy would both have to impose ideas upon others and come about through violent agression?
Posted on 11-Apr-08 at 2:54 am | Permalink
dalton wrote:
“dalton, you claim that there are myths though (and I’m presuming that the logic you present between your two prior comments is indicative of what you believe) — do you have proof that the OT/NT or any other holy book is mythological or have I misread that particular claim?”
Matthew, what I said was: “Our holy books incorporate law, myth, history, custom, culture, and tradition.”
Are you asking for specific examples of myths (i.e., a traditional story associated with a specific culture) which were incorporated into the Bible? (I’m happy to provide them, being a huge fan of world mythology - just want to be sure that’s what you’re asking for.)
Posted on 11-Apr-08 at 4:43 am | Permalink
dalton wrote:
“You can accept whatever the Hell you want. What you accept for yourself is irrelevant. That is not democracy.”
Thanks, Charles. My point was neither to defend nor recommend democracy, but to seek clarification of your statement that democracy is a “religion”. You haven’t.
Posted on 11-Apr-08 at 4:48 am | Permalink
Charles Anthony wrote:
C,
You are further proving my point that people have blind faith in democracy as if it were a religion or a supernatural savior.
This is a severely mistaken assumption:
Regardless, judging the morality of an action is independent of the perceived alternatives.
Can you understand that “democracy” is not a person? It is how we label collective activity instead of identifying individual activity.
Can you understand that only individual people can act morally? Ascribing morality to a collectivization of people is nonsense akin to a belief in the super-natural.
I did not say that democracy is bad. [I do believe it is “bad” but that is beside the point.] Rather, I said democracy represents an imposition upon other people. I suggested that self-defense is a good reason to impose your way. Refer again to Dalton who just thinks of his own benefit.
You took the self-defense and extravagantly extrapolated it. You assume that democracy represents self-defense in some way.
No — not if you accept the responsibility of defending your own property yourself.
Democracy and other forms of statism are attractive because they facilitate avoiding personal responsibility.
Posted on 11-Apr-08 at 5:01 am | Permalink
dalton wrote:
Ah. So you misspoke when you characterized democracy was a “religion”. You meant to say that SOME people SEEM to treat it AS THOUGH it were a religion.
I don’t.
There, that’s settled.
Posted on 11-Apr-08 at 6:00 am | Permalink
Charles Anthony wrote:
Yeah, riiiiight.
Blindly accepting “the intrusion of state power into my life” is holding something sacred.
Posted on 11-Apr-08 at 7:59 am | Permalink
dalton wrote:
Ah. So I’m assuming you don’t pay taxes, obey stoplights, or obey court summons?
Anyway, you can stop now. You’re using the words “religion” and “sacred” for rhetorical effect, not in their actual sense. No problem - that’s what I thought you were doing. Just wanted to confirm it.
Posted on 11-Apr-08 at 8:31 am | Permalink
Shane Edwards wrote:
Thanks Scott. For my part, I apologize for being overly harsh. I thought you were flaming , like some commenters have been known to do, and I wasn’t feeling as charitable as I should have been.
Good to know it was a simple misunderstanding.
Posted on 11-Apr-08 at 8:40 am | Permalink
Charles Anthony wrote:
Dalton,
The trouble you have is that your definition of “religion” is wrong. Religion is not restricted to the supernatural.
Posted on 11-Apr-08 at 8:41 am | Permalink
dalton wrote:
Thanks for sharing your personal definition of “religion”. I don’t think most folks share your view, but of course we are all free to use any word to mean anything at all. It’s only when trying to communicate with someone else that unusual usages such as your become a problem.
However, you seem to be using “religion” as a descriptor for pretty much anything that anyone believes. While that broad definition limits the term’s usefulness, it makes your intent clear.
So - what word do YOU use to describe what most English speakers mean when they use the term “religion”?
Posted on 11-Apr-08 at 9:15 am | Permalink
Shane Edwards wrote:
So Dalton, how do you understand people when they say stuff like “politics is my religion” or “he surfs the net religiously”? Is it restricted to just concepts of powers beyond the 4 dimensions we live in?
Posted on 11-Apr-08 at 9:36 am | Permalink
C wrote:
Charles,
“You are further proving my point that people have blind faith in democracy as if it were a religion or a supernatural savior.”
Golly. How did I do that?
“This is a severely mistaken assumption: Any other alternative would have to be brought about by violent agression, and therefore imposing your ideas on others is justified.”
“Regardless…”
Wait. Aren’t you going to tell me how I’m mistaken?
“…judging the morality of an action is independent of the perceived alternatives.”
Should someone avoid doing something bad if the percieved alternative is that something worse happens?
“Can you understand that “democracy” is not a person? It is how we label collective activity instead of identifying individual activity.”
No. Playing hockey is not democracy. It is collective activity.
“Can you understand that only individual people can act morally? Ascribing morality to a collectivization of people is nonsense akin to a belief in the super-natural.”
Wouldn’t that mean that if I want to avoid the problems of morality, all i need do is bring a friend?
“I did not say that democracy is bad.”
Can we stick with what each other did say? I’ve a feeling things might get long-winded otherwise.
“[I do believe it is “bad” but that is beside the point.] ”
Why mention it then?
“Rather, I said democracy represents an imposition upon other people. I suggested that self-defense is a good reason to impose your way.”
Yes you did.
“Refer again to Dalton who just thinks of his own benefit.”
What?
I’m really not sure what Dalton’s opinions have to do with this.
“You took the self-defense and extravagantly extrapolated it.”
We’re talking about abstract concepts. Of course I’m going to extrapolate.
“You assume that democracy represents self-defense in some way.”
I’m suggesting that the only way to remove democracy would be through violent agression, and that defending against that violent agression would represent self defence.
But still, I’m not sure I’ve covered all your comment. Let’s go back and take a look at what you say, and see it from your point of view:
“I did not say that democracy is bad. [I do believe it is “bad” but that is beside the point.]”
Ok, so you think (1) democracy is bad.
“Can you understand that “democracy” is not a person? It is how we label collective activity instead of identifying individual activity.”
And you think (2) Democracy is a collective activity.
“Ascribing morality to a collectivization of people is nonsense akin to a belief in the super-natural. ”
And that (3) collective acts should not be ascribed morality.
Ergo, your train of though runs:
(1) democracy is bad.
(2) Democracy is a collective activity.
(3) Collective acts should not be ascribed morality.
I’m not sure if I see the internal logic here.
Posted on 11-Apr-08 at 11:02 am | Permalink
dalton wrote:
“o Dalton, how do you understand people when they say stuff like “politics is my religion” or “he surfs the net religiously”? Is it restricted to just concepts of powers beyond the 4 dimensions we live in?”
I understand that they are using the word metaphorically, Shane.
Posted on 11-Apr-08 at 11:13 am | Permalink
Shane Edwards wrote:
Are they.
Sometimes I wonder.
Posted on 11-Apr-08 at 11:30 am | Permalink
dalton wrote:
They are. Wonder no longer.
Posted on 11-Apr-08 at 12:21 pm | Permalink
Matthew wrote:
Yeah Dalton, I’m looking for some examples of myth in the Bible (and also the appropriate proof to back up your claim).
Posted on 11-Apr-08 at 5:01 pm | Permalink
Charles Anthony wrote:
Shane,
It is only now that I fully realize that your post is excellent and very complete. Kudos.
———–
C,
You said: “I’m not sure if I see the internal logic here.”
No surprise there! You are frustratingly misrepresenting my writing. You re-interpreted my writing by putting words in my mouth. I will reply to one thing in your long string because it is the only one that is important.
“Golly. How did I do that?”
How did you demonstrate that people have blind faith in democracy as if it were a religion or a supernatural savior? Here: you said “that the only way to remove democracy would be through violent agression, and that defending against that violent agression would represent self defence.”
Note the following things: you are assuming that your statement is accurate, significant and to the credit of democracy. I believe it is none of those.
You are blind to the fact that democracy is inherently violent aggression itself. Regardless, your statement is unfounded. You believe it without proof. I challenge you to prove it.
You will fail that challenge which then proves my point: you hold democracy as a sacred cow.
Challenging you to prove your statement is sooooooooo easy to make because I can prove you are wrong but I am not going to do so. It is enough for me to put the burden of proof on YOU to prove your statement. This will demonstrate that you have blind faith in democracy. That is my point.
My point is not to prove that democracy is bad but rather to demonstrate that you blindly accept it as sacred.
Your failure to prove your assertion does more. It demonstrates that your reflex is to create a boogeyman — a non-existent threat — in response to somebody who questions the holiness of your faith. That reflex further reinforces democracy as your religion.
You see, I have blind faith too — in a lot of things, in fact. I am comfortable with that and I have no problem admitting it.
I have blind faith in my religion. I also have a lot of blind faith in science too. I have blind faith in my chiropractor. I take a lot of things for granted. Here is the rub: everybody takes a lot of knowledge for granted or without proof. There is no sane way to live in this world otherwise.
This brings everything full circle to Shane’s statement in the Opening Post: “there is no such thing as a faith-neutral political position. We are all informed by our beliefs,” which is absolutely correct because nobody in this world can operate sanely if they must depend exclusively on proven knowledge or absolute reason.
A person’s motives are either based upon the acceptance of an apriori axiom or they are purely selfish or both. In the purely selfish case, the person has made themselves to be a god — again, something else that Shane astutely pointed out in his Opening Post.
——-
Dalton,
I did not share my personal opinion on the definition of religion. Look it up for yourself. Maybe you could start here: Religion on Wikipoedia.
There is something new called the internet that exists today. It helps intellectually lazy people do research because it offers lightening-fast search functions at your fingertips. I suggest that you check it out one of these days. If you can not be bothered to look up the meaning of “religion” on the internet, stop wasting my time.
Posted on 11-Apr-08 at 9:57 pm | Permalink
Charles Anthony wrote:
To summarize: there is no rational separation between religion and politics which is the point of the Opening Post.
Posted on 11-Apr-08 at 10:03 pm | Permalink
dalton wrote:
Charles: it’s a real shame you saw fit to cheapen what had been an interesting discussion.
Matthew: certainly. But let’s clarify something, so that you and I aren’t wasting our time. What would you accept as “proof” that a particular account in the Bible was a myth?
Suppose a particular Bible narrative pre-existed in one or several other cultures, predating the Bible account? Or suppose one story in the Bible contradicted another? Or suppose a Biblical narrative turned out to be definitively, physically impossible? What exactly do you require as “proof”?
Posted on 12-Apr-08 at 6:38 am | Permalink
C wrote:
Charles, out of the numerous points I made in what was, as you say a “long string”, you’ve decided to reply to just one of several points. You do say though that it is the only one that’s important, and I’m prepared to take you at your word. This is the only point I’ll deal with.
You quote me as asking:
“How did I do that?”
There are five words in that sentence, just five words. They’re not complicated. They’re not difficult to understand. A child of six could understand them. In fact, you even rephrase the question just to be absolutely sure that you’ve understood what it is that I’m asking. You say:
“How did you demonstrate that people have blind faith in democracy as if it were a religion or a supernatural savior?”
But you know, we don’t even need anything beyond those first two words in the original question, and the question as you’ve phrased it. We just need “How did”, and it’s that second word that’s important here.
Did.
As in “how did I do that?”
As is “I did that yesterday.”
As in “I did that at some point in the past.”
Because that’s the thing, Charlie. As you were so kind and gracious to translate “axiomatically” for me, today it’s going to be your lesson. Never let it be said that I don’t return a favour.
“Did” refers to something that has already happened. It refers to an event in the past. It refers to something already done.
Let’s take an example:
“How did I do that?”
Now, what I’m asking here is (and really, don’t be afraid to go back to the start of this comment if you’re finding this a little too hard going. If you find that there’s something you don’t understand, and you need to read it through once, twice, or several thousand times, mouthing the words as you go, don’t worry. It’s really nothing to be ashamed of.) what did I do at some point in the past prior to this question being raised to lead you to believe that I have demonstrated that people have blind faith in democracy as if it were a religion or a supernatural savior?
And you reply with a quote written by me AFTER I posed that question.
You reply with an answer which is demonstrably, objectively false.
You reply to a question which is the only one out of several you choose to answer, which you say is the only important one, which a child of six could understand and you still manage to get it wrong. That’s what you just did. You really did.
Posted on 12-Apr-08 at 9:08 am | Permalink
Jen wrote:
Conservatives happier than Liberals, author says
Conservatives happier than Liberals, author says. ‘Too much freedom blows the moral fuse box’. Craig Offman, National Post Published: Saturday, April 12, …
http://www.nationalpost.com/ne.....?id=440234 - 57 minutes ago - Similar pages
Posted on 12-Apr-08 at 10:20 am | Permalink
dalton wrote:
Gosh, that’s certainly…errr…irrelevant. Thanks, Jen .
Posted on 12-Apr-08 at 1:00 pm | Permalink
Matthew wrote:
Well let’s see what you’ve got Dalton; I don’t think you’d have a very easy time proving that a narrative pre-existed in another culture (although I would also expect proof of not only the other culture’s dating but of the Bible narrative’s as well). The Bible contradiction proof is one I’ve openly challenged critics to produce for years now so fire away (please be through though!) A Bible narrative being impossible though? Well, I’m sure you understand that by definition, some things in it would be impossible, hence miracles, but I’m sure you mean something more like a historical discrepancy or the like. Basically, what I’m looking for is proof that meets the same rigid standards that would be expected from me to *prove* Christianity was the truth.
Posted on 12-Apr-08 at 7:42 pm | Permalink
Charles Anthony wrote:
C,
If you can prove your statement that any alternative to democracy would have to be imposed through violent aggression, your argument would be good. If you can not prove your statement, your argument would be bad. [Your argument might also be bad for many other reasons too but that is a different story.]
Can you prove your statement?
If you insist that your argument is good without proving it, that means you have unprovable faith in a concept — in this case, judging democracy. That rationality has the same merit as the faith in a religion.
So, either you evade proving your statement about democracy or you prove it.
Posted on 14-Apr-08 at 6:50 am | Permalink
C wrote:
“If you can not prove your statement, your argument would be bad.”
Prove it.
Oh… wait.
You can’t.
What a bad argument.
That’s the trouble with trying to prove things — you can provide evidence that supports your conclusion, but you can never prove it absolutely aside from, of course, the cognito. Everything else could be an illusion.
But of course, that’s not the way we deal with things in the real world. We accept that there are some things that exist, even though we can’t prove their existence absolutely, and we try and make statements about them. So how can we try to make sure those statements are true? We can try to provide examples that support our ideas, and we look for counter examples that might disprove, might falsify, our ideas. I can think of examples where the use of force has caused the removal of democracy, and I’m sure you can too. I can’t think of any counter-examples, but it sounds like you can. So wouldn’t the fastest way to resolve this be for you to provide them?
You seem to think that being unable to prove something and still considering it true makes it equivalent to religion. Wouldn’t a better equivalence to draw be with the unfalsifiability of religion?
And with that, we’re almost back on topic. Let’s not break the thread again, because that makes baby Jesus in heaven cry. See? That’s what I mean. Unfalsifiable.
Posted on 14-Apr-08 at 9:42 am | Permalink
Charles Anthony wrote:
“You seem to think that being unable to prove something and still considering it true makes it equivalent to religion.”
Correct.
“Wouldn’t a better equivalence to draw be with the unfalsifiability of religion?”
Irrelevant.
Posted on 14-Apr-08 at 12:24 pm | Permalink
C wrote:
Charles,
Wow. I didn’t realise your definition of religion was quite so broad, but now that you’ve clarified it, you’re right, according to your own somewhat individual meaning of the word. Everything aside from the mind of Charles Anthony is equivalent to religion.
Posted on 14-Apr-08 at 1:01 pm | Permalink