A somewhat complicated question. It wasn't that many centuries ago that, in most cultures, if you had a child that you could no longer afford to take care of, and a convenient slave-merchant wasn't handy, you simply sent it out into the woods to be wolf-chow.
That has been a fairly-common practice in most places on the face of the earth at one time or another. And to the point, I am unaware of any religion specifically prohibiting this practice.
Given the relative levels of technology available, this is certainly viewable as abortion. So it would seem to depend on how much of what isn't forbidden is compulsory.
Posts: 196 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob- I think you politely do what many people quite impolitely try, which is to assert that athiesm is analogous to faith. For some people it might be, but that's the beauty of athiesm.
As an athiest, I can tell you that I do not have faith in science and I do not consider myself an adherent of a religion. I don't follow a doctrine or a canon of writings and I don't not question my own reasons for thinking anything. I just wouldn't call my type of athiesm any kind of faith in any one thing. This does not, as many very cagey religious people will say, mean that I believe in nothing. As in, nothing is what I believe in, the thing which is nothing. No, I don't value that type of belief in the way religious people do, and I feel that is a major way in which religious people don't understand athiests. To some religious people, faith is assumed and the object of faith is the only question. God or nothing, the Spaghetti monster or the tooth fairy, or the devil or SOMETHING, or the thing that is nothing. But for me its none of these.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Please note that I answered the "which religions are pro-choice" question more specifically in the last post on the previous page. I'd hate to see it lost to end-of-page syndrome.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Jewish tradition upholds choice Jewish tradition has long affirmed and protected the life, well-being, and health of pregnant women and has upheld the basic right to abortion. The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, representing Conservative congregations, in 1993 reaffirmed its resolution opposing any legislative attempts to weaken Roe v. Wade through constitutional amendments. Recent resolutions of the Union for Reform Judaism, representing Reform congregations, uphold an "unwavering commitment to the protection and preservation of the reproductive rights of women" and urge constituents to work toward securing or retaining these rights.
Jewish peoples feel free to elaborate on the quote, please.
I apologize for some of the perhaps overly strong words in that link.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think the analogous situation for an atheist would be when you are called upon to craft or vote on laws RESPECTING the religious notions of others. I've known atheists who could not fathom the value to this nation of allowing native Americans to hunt puma. They would simply say "no, that's an endangered species and we don't give two hoots abour your religion." Now, whether I agree or disagree with that sentiment, I think that the analogy is what we're after here. I mean, OBVIOUSLY an atheist would have no trouble separating the lack of belief in God from questions of "right behavior" on things like murder, abortion, etc. I think the case that needs to be considered is when our laws actually work to protect and nurture religious activities and you would need to decide what's best for America and what your constituents would want.
Any effective politician should be able to separate their personal philosophies from governing when it comes to protecting others' beliefs. The Constitution specficially states that we have a freedom of religious belief - so an atheist politician would have an obligation to support a law to protect religious beliefs *if* those beliefs were under attack and *if* those beliefs did not interfere with other laws. In the case of interference with other laws, voting by the public would be necessary.
If an atheist politician were to thumb his nose at a religion in jeopardy just because it is a religion, then they shouldn't be in office!
Now, in the case of puma-hunting, that goes against endangered species protection laws, so that would be something that would require expanded debate, with sensitivity to the religious issue at hand.
quote: If 90% of the people in your district believe in God, for example, would you feel best trying to get "In God we Trust" taken off of our money, and "Under God" taken out of the pledge of allegiance?
If the majority agrees to it, then I suppose it's fine. But believe it or not, even many people who believe in God don't favor public displays of a "superior religion" or governmental endorsement of one particular mode of belief.
As for "Under God," that was added in the McCarthy era to somehow route Communism, so it's not even a part of the original Pledge and was invented to serve an incredibly goofy purpose. It should go just because it's a trifle embarrassing to still hold onto a relic of Commie paranoia in this day and age. In my opinion.
quote: What about tax exempt status for churches. I know many atheists who have a major problem with that, and yet, it's a cornerstone of our tax policies in relation to the freedom of religion clause of the Constitution -- at least it has been so far.
It sure is, and I'm personally fine with it. Churches serve an important purpose in our society and often need financial help to continue providing emotional necessities to the public. I understand that a lot of atheists have a problem with that, but tax-exempt status for churches isn't something that threatens an atheist's right to believe as they will - unlike political endorsement of one particular religion.
quote:Can you leave your atheism out of the equation when your "prejudices" tell you we're supporting religion? Even though most people seem to want it that way?
Sure, as long as the people who support religion don't try to mandate that I also support religion.
To give you some background on my life, I am the only atheist in a very large Mormon family. I have 54 first cousins and 10 sets of aunts and uncles just on my dad's side of the family (which is the more religious). I was raised religious and am very aware of the many positive benefits of religion in society. I had *myself* baptized when I was 19 because my religious training had slipped after my parents divorced, and I felt that I needed it in my life. So I am very familiar with religious life and religious society. I don't think it's bad, and I don't think that everybody needs to think like I do.
I do think that I have a right as an American to be free from political designations when it comes to religion. I have a right to be an atheist, and to live my life as an atheist, without being told by politicians that I "don't know any better" if I'm not, or that I need to obey certain laws *because* God says I do. See what I mean?
I'm all for everybody believing and practicing as they see fit, as long as it doesn't interfere with anybody else's beliefs or practices.
quote:I don't see atheism (broadly defined so as to include agnostics) as "anti-religion" but I do see it often as exchanging one set of prejudices for another.
Yes, sadly, many atheists are very prejudiced against religion. That is unfortunate - there is no need for that kind of thing.
quote: In it's strictest sense (atheism excluding agnosticism), it is no more founded in science or reason than is religion. It's a belief that something unproveable does NOT exist. It's faith in Occam's Razor.
Exactly right - which, in my mind, *means* "founded in reason." I can understand how others might not see it that way, though.
quote:Which is fine by me, but people often have trouble recognizing that faith in simplest possible explanations may not be warranted, and that it's precisely at those vast and ultimate questions where Occam's Razor is just as much a leap of faith as is believing the noodly appendages of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or <insert name of deity here>
Yay, spaghetti monster!!
I guess I don't quite agree with you that believing that the most obviously simple explanation is probably the right one is as big a leap of faith as believing in God, but I can see why you do see it that way.
Thanks for a great discussion!
Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: [QB] Libbie, I agree with much of the rest of your post. I'm sorry I can't go point by point, though. I really don't do well with that posting style. I would, for example, point out that you chose to break my post so you disagree with something that I had already dealt with in the very next sentence, which you then agreed with.
I did? Sorry about that - I should have thought that out better, obviously. I don't mind getting short responses. I know I get pretty long-winded, especially about topics I care about. Thanks for explaining! Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, real quick, I would like to elaborate a little on what a 'Christian Nationalist' is. Here is a link to Michelle Goldberg's elaboration on her definition. I'm posting this link because I don't want people to think that 'Christian Nationalist' is a code word for any Christian.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:"we don't support abortion as a form of birth control, but when life conflicts with life the choice must be left to the woman and her family, with appropriate medical and spiritual guidence."
This is what I have always believed, and thought my religion taught it; it never occurred to me that that position was considered pro-choice.
The problem is that pro-choice people feel that any limiting of abortion rights or access puts you in the pro-life camp; the staunch pro-lifers say that any beliefs that abortion is ever okay puts you in the pro-choice camp; and there's no category for what many (most?) people really believe.
As an athiest, I can tell you that I do not have faith in science and I do not consider myself an adherent of a religion. I don't follow a doctrine or a canon of writings and I don't not question my own reasons for thinking anything. I just wouldn't call my type of athiesm any kind of faith in any one thing. This does not, as many very cagey religious people will say, mean that I believe in nothing. As in, nothing is what I believe in, the thing which is nothing. No, I don't value that type of belief in the way religious people do, and I feel that is a major way in which religious people don't understand athiests. To some religious people, faith is assumed and the object of faith is the only question. God or nothing, the Spaghetti monster or the tooth fairy, or the devil or SOMETHING, or the thing that is nothing. But for me its none of these.
Eloquently put! Thank you! For the most part, I am in the same camp as you.
Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Then aren't they all as a collective still forcing their beliefs on the NON-religious?
It's a problem because there are non-religious people that agree with them for non-religious reasons, but the issue stems from a point of doctrine.
Why does abortion have to be presented to the public *as* a religious problem? Let the people vote on it. Their reasons for voting however they will are their own, whether religious or non-religious. There are plenty of non-religious people who oppose abortion, and plenty of religious people who support it. Let the majority decide without bringing religion into it. That's the only way that is truly fair to *everybody*.
I agree. But it's the same way then with ANY religious issue. They can argue that they should all be allowed to use their religious doctrine as a guideline to legislate their religion, even if it's under the guise of something else, so long as everyone knows what is being voted on, why does the source matter?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: Also, real quick, I would like to elaborate a little on what a 'Christian Nationalist' is. Here is a link to Michelle Goldberg's elaboration on her definition. I'm posting this link because I don't want people to think that 'Christian Nationalist' is a code word for any Christian.
Thanks for that Storm. When I posted earlier in the thread about the Christian Nationalists, it never occurred to me that anyone would think I was talking about all Christians. I've read and studied quite a bit about them and their wish-list, so I suppose I just assumed that because I know who they are and what they stand for, everyone does. Clearly, that is not the case.
I do think it is important that everyone be familiar with what these folks want, and how opposed it is to everything I was taught that this country stands for. They are a small group, in the total scheme of things, but they've got supporters in high places and so deserve to have an eye kept on them.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: According to link:
quote: Jewish tradition upholds choice Jewish tradition has long affirmed and protected the life, well-being, and health of pregnant women and has upheld the basic right to abortion. The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, representing Conservative congregations, in 1993 reaffirmed its resolution opposing any legislative attempts to weaken Roe v. Wade through constitutional amendments. Recent resolutions of the Union for Reform Judaism, representing Reform congregations, uphold an "unwavering commitment to the protection and preservation of the reproductive rights of women" and urge constituents to work toward securing or retaining these rights.
Jewish peoples feel free to elaborate on the quote, please.
I apologize for some of the perhaps overly strong words in that link.
The link brings examples only from the Conservative and Reform movements, threfore leaving out half of the picture. The Orthodox movement has a very different opinion about the issue. In the Orthodox movement, abortion is allowed (by all opinions) if the woman's life is in danger. Some Rabbis hold that if the woman was raped an abortion is also permissible. But generally, although many Orthodox people are pro Roe v Wade and vote Democrat, the laws of the religion are kept separate from the laws of the country.
Posts: 97 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Crescent, does that mean that Orthodox Jews are pro-choice when it comes to positive law? That there is no official position because Orthodox Judaism is very heterogenous? Or that the law of the land isn't reflective of the religious law for Orthodox Jews?
Orthodox Jews is a broad term. On one end there are the Ultra-Orthodox, and on the other, Modern Orthodox. Many Modern Orthodox Jews are pro-choice and pro gay marriage when it comes to positive law, but not when it comes to religion. Ultra-Orthodox Jews, though, tend to be more conservative about these issues in positive law as well.
For Orthodox Jews who are pro-choice, it is not because they don't believe in the moral code of their religion. It's more about letting people live however they believe to be right (as long as they don't harm others, of course). And since a fetus is not considered a full human being in Judaism, the abortion issue can be viewed in many different ways.
Tell me if I'm not being clear enough - I'm having trouble looking at this post through the eyes of someone who isn't so familiar with the religion as I am.
Posts: 97 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: I don't see atheism (broadly defined so as to include agnostics) as "anti-religion" but I do see it often as exchanging one set of prejudices for another.
Being agnostic, I take mild exception to being relegated to a subset of atheism. The difference in placing no faith in a higher power and placing no faith in organized religion, while I'm not saying one is superior to the other or objectionable, I think is a fairly distinct one.
Also, if you define prejudice as personal preference, then yes it is a valid assertion, but if you define prejudice as a bias to prejudge people of other faiths, then I can't agree with your assessment there.
(Edit: I missed the qualifier "often" on my first read, so my second paragraph problem doesn't apply to the point you were trying to make).Posts: 74 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
I realize there's a lot of disagreement on what the differences between "atheist" and "agnostic" mean -- including among people who self-identify as one or the other.
I got that bit from the Wiki article and thought I'd better make it clear whether I was using a broad versus narrow definition of "atheist."
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Being agnostic, I take mild exception to being relegated to a subset of atheism. The difference in placing no faith in a higher power and placing no faith in organized religion, while I'm not saying one is superior to the other or objectionable, I think is a fairly distinct one.
I think it goes even further than that, in my opinion. Atheism doesn't lack *faith* in a higher power - it lacks any *belief* in a higher power. Faith kind of implies (to me, anyway) that you have some belief in a concept or religion or whatever the issue at hand may be. Atheists are "without religion" by literal definition - they don't believe that any god or gods exists at all. (But that is not to say that they are not just as likely to be moral and conscientious as any given religious person, of course. That is a common misconception, sadly).
Agnostics either acknowledge a supernatural higher power of some kind but don't ally with any set religion, or believe in that there is a strong possibility of a higher power (from what I've heard, anyway). They're definitely not in the same camp, and I can see why you'd be frustrated with that misconception!
quote:Also, if you define prejudice as personal preference, then yes it is a valid assertion, but if you define prejudice as a bias to prejudge people of other faiths, then I can't agree with your assessment there.
I took the word "prejudice" to mean bias against other faiths or beliefs in this instance, but I also took it with the assumption that the original writer was allowing that religion includes some prejudice by nature, as well.
Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Agnostics either acknowledge a supernatural higher power of some kind but don't ally with any set religion, or believe in that there is a strong possibility of a higher power (from what I've heard, anyway). They're definitely not in the same camp, and I can see why you'd be frustrated with that misconception!"
Um, my understanding of being an agnostic is that they don't know whether there is a higher power or not. There could be or their couldn't be. They kind of sit on the fence. This is sort of the definition that I would use:
Agnostic:
1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God. 2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
Thats from dictionary.com
Posts: 315 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm just generally confused, so I call myself an agnositic. Telling people you're confused generally leads them to think you're open for conversion. I have all the information I need, I just don't know what to do with it.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
My statement was much more limited in scope than any of this. I have personally known some atheists and many, many agnostics. The self-professed atheists I have known personally have been of two types:
1) People who really meant "agnostic" but didn't know the proper terminology for their beliefs, and frankly, didn't care. In general, they just hadn't thought it through. In my experience, many of these people were young and asserting their independence from their own religious upbringing. Many were trying to be trendy or rebellious by using the term "atheist."
2) People who claim to KNOW that there is no God. They do not state it as a provisional belief that they are looking forward to some gradual unfolding through knowledge gained during their lives. They simply assert it as fact. In my experience, most of these folks were empiricists, intelligent, trained in science and logic, and had reached a conclusion based, in part, on accepting the simplest possible mechanistic explanation for the universe.
As I've said, I know there are many more versions of atheism and agnosticism out there, I just haven't known them personally. (And no...meeting someone on a web-board doesn't really count for this sort of thing).
Also, I know what the dictionary says the terms mean. For a more rounded presentation, I like the article on atheism at Wikipedia
I chose to use the broadest possible definition of atheism from that intro for one sentence of my earlier post. It doesn't mean I lump every non-theist together, I assure you. No more than I lump all theists together.
I also agree that it is entirely possible that an atheist will lead a life guided by ethical principals of a more-or-less universal nature. Those who do so tend to have well-thought-out moral positions.
Whether atheists in general are "just as likely" to be morally upstanding as the average theist...I can't say. In part that stems from a lack of data. I don't follow atheists around to see how they stack up, behaviorwise. I also don't stop people as I observe them engaged in moral, immoral, or amoral acts and ask what they believe about the nature of God.
Another big part of my unwillingness to consent to the "just as likely" statement is that we are probably going to run into the usual problems defining what IS moral behavior. At least some definitions require the presence of God, and by virtue of that assertion anyone who does not believe in God cannot be moral. While I don't subscribe to those viewpoints, I suspect that we're going to have trouble selecting any single view of morality that would ever allow us to proceed to the step where we could study the average morality quotient of atheists and theists and reach a valid conclusion on how they compare.
RE: use of the word "prejudice" -- it is a "loaded" word in our society. I selected it on purpose. I don't expect ANYONE to think through every situation. There isn't time or energy. We ALL have prejudices that we retain for whatever reasons, until we choose to admit challenges to our individual world views and find some of those prejudices no longer valid. The same is true of everyone. Saying it is true of the atheists I have known personally does not mean that I can't recognize the prejudices that theists hold -- or even some of the ones that I hold.
It's a rare person who has no blind spots with respect to things like core beliefs. From this point of view, agnosticism and religious skepticism are the hard way. In that respect, these are the most difficult paths BECAUSE they require the person to continually rethink their core beliefs, even in the midst of wondering whether there could/should be such a thing as core beliefs.
The true-believer never has such worries. Those theists out at the 3rd standard deviation are not bothered by questions. They may have trouble living up to the standard of behavior, but they know the right thing to do. Same for atheists. The ones who reach "true-believer" status don't have to worry about the core -- they KNOW God doesn't exist.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
blacwolve: agnostics make lousy converts, unless they've FIRST become convinced of something, and are thus no longer agnostic. I haven't seen anyone convinced by words alone. I suppose it'd be possible, but I just haven't seen it.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Semantics is completely borked between Athiest and Agnostic.
You can be a strong athiest who can not be an agnostic and a weak athiest who can be an agnostic and that type of agnostic that a weak athiest can be is a weak agnostic and a strong agnostic is incompatable with that matchup. Makes perfect sense, right?
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: blacwolve: agnostics make lousy converts, unless they've FIRST become convinced of something, and are thus no longer agnostic. I haven't seen anyone convinced by words alone. I suppose it'd be possible, but I just haven't seen it.
Just to clarify, my post wasn't meant as an attack of any kind, just a comment about another way the word agnostic could be used. I like the term, because it is more of a catchall term for everyone who is confused, or doesn't know. Even though usually they're confused or don't know in completely different ways.
In my experience telling someone who's trying to convert you that you're confused makes their eyes light up. Because if you're confused, it means that the right push might send you over into their religion. And it's true, I could very easily be pushed over into Christianity. But I already know more than most of the people (college students) trying to convert me about Christianity and Christian theology. The problem isn't that I don't know that Jesus died for my sins or anything like that. The primary problem is that if I believe in God, I believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, and I can't love or worship Him. The people who might be interested in convincing me that a literal interpretation of the Bible is not correct are generally not the ones evangelizing.
*shrugs* So I say I'm agnostic and not really interested when I get cornered like that.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: In it's strictest sense (atheism excluding agnosticism), it is no more founded in science or reason than is religion. It's a belief that something unproveable does NOT exist. It's faith in Occam's Razor.
I do not agree with this. Not believing in something because you have been given no reason to believe in it is not simply faith in Occam's Razor. Believing that something specifically does not exist because you have no reason to believe in it does demonstrate faith in Occam's Razor. I think this is a pivotal point in the difference between agnosticism and atheism.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amanecer -- For about the 5th time, I thought I was clear in speaking about a particular type of atheist who, in my experience, claims to KNOW that God does not exist, and who cites, as proof of that, the principle that simplest explanations are the best.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that Harris' opinion is a valid, if narrow, approach to take. If I may add, I also think that there are quite a few nominally Christian legistators who legislate, what I believe other Christians would consider, sin. And there are quite a few candidates, but for their lack of faith in Jesus Christ as their savior, who act in ways commensurate with the more attractive parts of Christianity.
*shrugs*
I'm not Christian. This isn't my debate. This is a civil war the christians have to fight among themselves. I'm disdainful towards Christians like Harris, and I'm tired of watching our nation cater to a specific class of Christians who I believe are beneath me and whose character is beneath the promise of this country. Anybody who was ready to raise a fuss over "under God," being removed from the pledge, given the phrase's dubious history, is barely fit to shine my shoes.
posted
I wish that we, as a country, would elect people on their individual beliefs and morality, rather than their professed membership in any particular group.
It's sad that the majority of the populace is so lazy that they would like all their choices distilled to the most basic level.
Candidates simply pick from a selection of groups with the largest constituencies, and have their votes handed to them.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Anybody who was ready to raise a fuss over "under God," being removed from the pledge, given the phrase's dubious history, is barely fit to shine my shoes.
Considering who's wearing the shoes, though, that's not much of an insult, is it? I'm sure there are lots of people who would be honoured and delighted to shine your shoes.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't really know that many people who admit to voting a party line. I do know a few (but still, not that many) who vote based on a professed religion.
I think the party affiliation is more a matter of pragmatism. It's nearly impossible to get elected in a partisan race if one isn't the candidate from a major party. It's just too difficult to get the funding to mount a truly effective campaign.
Parties, especially party "operatives" or "election consultants" really seem to be the cynical influence, imo. These are the folks who decide on the platform, who maneuver legislation prior to major elections (ensuring that we have a flag-burning amendment, or a pledge of allegiance amendment sometime within the few months leading up to an election.) These are the folks who set party platforms and try to hit the hot button issues they think will garner the most votes. Whether or not the candidates truly believe in it or not, if they want to be elected, they need access to the money...And that means becoming a party candidate and, at a minimum, paying lip service to the party line.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: I wish that we, as a country, would elect people on their individual beliefs and morality, rather than their professed membership in any particular group.
I would add to that a basic level of capability to do the job. We're currently suffering from a serious lack of organizational capability in our government, and the party system is just perpetuating the situation.
I'd prefer someone that didn't fully fit the moral mold I envision as the ideal candidate who was prepared to run the government well than… Forest Gump, for instance.
On an upside, I suspect Nagin's campaign for a fully chocolate New Orleans is in full swing.
Posts: 74 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bugger, I typed this whole long post re the semantic of agnosticism and a bit of browser wonkiness ate it.
The long and short of my point was that since, tangentially to agnosticism, I view all religions as valid sources of learning, if through the filter of their cultural origins, by nature I don't tend to hold prejudice against one or the other beyond a superficial level. By superficial, I mean that the religious prejudices I have taken the time to recognize tend to be regarding individual church gatherings, regional cultural groups; specific entities that I have found to be particularly intolerant. Even these, though, I'm not proud of as invariably once you've got a solid prejudice locked in someone comes around that isn't "in the mold" and you put your foot in your mouth.
And, Whammo, you are guilty of what, as an agnostic, tends to be particularly irksome (since it is very much a catch-all, people often end up with some diverse preconceptions).
quote:At least some definitions require the presence of God, and by virtue of that assertion anyone who does not believe in God cannot be moral.
I think you'll find that moral traditions that, by nature, require a belief in God tend to have originated in order to preserve political power structure/climate.
Posts: 74 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think you'll find that moral traditions that, by nature, require a belief in God tend to have originated in order to preserve political power structure/climate.
Putting aside the tone of lecturer for a moment, could you explain precisely what this means? Isn't it possible to interpret EVERY generally shared societal "belief" as perpetuating the status quo, no matter what else it does or how it came to be?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
There really is no way to prove, or even apply a whole lot of evidence to a statement such as:
quote:I think you'll find that moral traditions that, by nature, require a belief in God tend to have originated in order to preserve political power structure/climate.
which don't require an acceptance of the pre-existing premise in order to be credible.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I dunno - you could at least form a couple of tests of the theory. For example, do we find any large religions that do not preserve the existing power structure of their societies? If we do, the hypothesis is falsified.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Except for the times which they don't preserve the existing power structure of their societies, such as religious movements-either with or without violence-attempt to change or overthrow the existing power structure of their societies.
It has happened before, KoM. I think you're well aware of it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Reformation merely changed which set of priests the peasants paid their tithes to. Christianity in the Roman Empire, much the same, especially after it got co-opted. Which other examples did you have in mind?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd grant you the "after it got co-opted" part, but I think you'd have a hard time arguing that Christianity originated in order to preserve the current (at the time) political power structure/climate.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fair enough, dkw, but I did specify 'large' religions. Christianity wasn't a very major factor until Constantine's conversion.
Edit : And, come to that, if you read between the lines Jesus saw himself as a reformer of the Jewish faith, not the prophet of a new one. The universality was Paul's invention.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Which brings us back to ChevMalFet's original claim -- and do any religions originate as "large" religions? I could agree with a statement that as a religion becomes a majority position in society it tends to support rather than challenge the status quo, but the idea that any of them originated for that purpose doesn't seem historically supportable to me.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I suppose it depends on what you mean by 'origin'. Suppose we put it this way : Religions that have any success over the long term are always a conservative element, supporting the social status quo, whether or not that was the intent of their founder.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
How about "tend toward" rather than "are always"? Because there are also always elements present that go the other way. The classic example is slavery -- Christianity for years supported and justified the institution. But the abolition movement in both Britain and America was also primarily led by Christians who were acting our their faith convictions. Other exammples would be the state church in Germany during WWII vs the Confessing Church movement and the Roman Catholic church in South America vs the Liberation Theology movement.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
KOM: What about the Tai Ping Rebellion in China. Where Hong Xiu Quan created his own Christian sect and immedietly set out to topple the Manchurian govt converting and coercing people along the way? From almost the day it was formed it was focused on the complete conversion of all Chinese people and the removal of Buddhism, Taoism all forms of idolatry, and the destruction of all non Han Chinese.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right then, bit of a spark of debate I didn't quite intend, aggravated by the fact that I shortened things rather than retype them—sorry if came off as lectury Bob. My point (and it's meant more as an idea than an immutable truth) is the moral traditions explicitly tied to a belief in a particular god (and by this I don't mean pro-life, or a particular religiously backed stance) tend to do little other than reinforce the power structure of the priests.
By this I mean Though shall have no other God but me, Shall not take my name in vain, shall keep the sabbath holy, must not approach the altar, intermarriage prohibitions, etc.
Dkw: I suspect very few started to support the status quo, and that really wasn't what I was trying to imply; I was just referring to a small subset of moral imperatives that religions generally have (or pick up along the way) to strengthen the "my tribe—everyone else" mentality. Very few political parties started off large, either, however, so obviously everyone has to start somewhere.
posted
And a lot of success that had over the long term, no? But even if it had succeeded, it would clearly have instantly become a strongly theocratic state, with the religion very intimately bound up with state enforcement. I would also note that comrade Hong saw himself as a reformer rather than a revolutionary; he didn't want to overthrow the system, he wanted to restore the Middle Kingdom to the point where it could afford to ignore the outland barbarians. He was against the corruption and inefficiency of his society, rather than the structure itself.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: And a lot of success that had over the long term, no? But even if it had succeeded, it would clearly have instantly become a strongly theocratic state, with the religion very intimately bound up with state enforcement. I would also note that comrade Hong saw himself as a reformer rather than a revolutionary; he didn't want to overthrow the system, he wanted to restore the Middle Kingdom to the point where it could afford to ignore the outland barbarians. He was against the corruption and inefficiency of his society, rather than the structure itself.
Oh he came quite close to overthrowing the manchurian govt, but close only counts in horseshoed and handgrenades. But I suppose you are right, alot of Hong Xiu Quan's efforts were in purifying not completely overhauling the govt.
edit: KOM I don't really buy that Jesus was reforming Judaism, and it was the zelous Paul that said we need to expand to other countries. True Jesus discouraged his apostles initially from going out amongst the gentiles, but at the end of his ministry he did say, "Go ye to all nations." Paul had to deal with some of the Christians trying to preserve elements of Judaism (specifically elements pertaining to the law of moses) that interfered with Jesus' words.
like kmbboots said, most organizations once they grow large enough support the status quo. And many liberal ideas appear conservative once time is allowed to pass. Early Christianity had some very radical ideas, it still does.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Well, I suppose it depends on what you mean by 'origin'. Suppose we put it this way : Religions that have any success over the long term are always a conservative element, supporting the social status quo, whether or not that was the intent of their founder.
Most organizations, once they reach a certain size and status, will support the status quo.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
True, but what reason does a corporation or army have to want to change it? A religion, on the other hand, is quite often in the position of being explicitly hypocritical when it supports an unjust status quo, as in the case of slavery. (I'm not so down on feudalism, mind you - it's not so obvious that there was any real alternative, given the technology of the time. Even so, calling it divinely appointed may be going a little far.)
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Paul had to deal with some of the Christians trying to preserve elements of Judaism (specifically elements pertaining to the law of moses) that interfered with Jesus' words.
Sez Paul. But this is very quickly going to get us into unproductive quote-slinging territory, with 'not one jot or tittle' vs 'not man for the Sabbath'.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
