The Left and Religion

Lad, you go Latin...

...or you go home.

No.

edited 2nd Apr '18 5:25:24 PM by TheWildWestPyro

If you want something more mystical...

There you go!

Well, there is a lot of things between politics and religion. Libertarianism is usually known as "the voice of reason" in politics, but relies on invisible hands that regulate the markets and immanentize the Eschaton.

On the socialist side, Marx was definitely against religion, but a some moderate leftist parties (at least in Europe) are promoting market regulation as a form of charity and happen to have religious overtones and/or appartenance.

Eeach big economical theory (eg. libertarianism, keynesianism, marxism) applies to a specific worldview.

Key concept knowledge is also lacking: I've once tried to converse about Marx's Law of Diminishing Profits to some people just exiting a Communist Youth center, and they were at a complete loss ! They believed about the imminent end of the libertarian system, but didn't know about the reason why the libertarian system is supposed to crumble away.

So it is probably normal that nowadays, faith, honor and other low-logic arguments define the political standings of people . Because today's world feels libertarian (in its rules and interactions with people), libertarianism is pointed out to be the only rational political ideology, while in fact, keynesianism and marxism are at least equally as logical : other ideologies' arguments are invalidated (or even invalidate themselves) while trying to fit to a reality bending to libertarian concepts and mechanisms, so they stay into their self-contained ideal theoretical worlds.

Religion itself is also at a loss about what political stance to adopt. Catholicism can be found on the right side, because right seems to value hard and honest work more than the left. But it can equally be found of the left side, because of the tragedies that libertarianism cause, the virtue of charity, the counterexamples of Sodom and Gomorrah, etc.

That ambiguity reflects most people's feelings, who are confused about "always doing the wrong choice". Religion and Politics are similar, in the way that innocence and faith are essential to them as they are supposed to lead us to better lives: at the bottom level, innocent priests and militants try the hardest to help the people, and at the top, power struggles destroy willpower, dismantle ideals and burn humanity to ash .

P.S.: Thanks Medinoc ! Autocorrected it

edited 25th Apr '18 9:10:46 AM by acuddle

Note: You're using "liberalism" in the French sense here, which tends to be called libertarianism here.

I'm a raging Left Wing nutjob and am motivated by my Christianity.

Notably, I had a genuine mystical experience in life. I was a fundamentalist Christian and terrible homophobe in high school (conflating the too) when God sent me a message. I heard his voice clearly for the first time in my life and he said, "Stop being an asshole."

It has informed my politics and beliefs ever since.

edited 25th Apr '18 8:46:43 AM by CharlesPhipps

Good on you.

Keynesianism doesnt just depend on logic— of all economic theories, its the one best supported by historical evidence.

Acuddle also seems to be making a lot of other presumptuons, which i have not heard elsewhere.

@Chareles Phipps: how do you define "Asshole"?

edited 25th Apr '18 9:43:30 AM by DeMarquis

Well, in this case it was very specifically the fact I was prejudiced against people because the environment around me claimed they were sinners. I feel like God gave me a basic idea of what constitutes an asshole through the feeling that bullying or abusing other people in general was bad—especially in God's name.

Just...be excellent to one another.

I from that day forward have done my best to embrace gays, transgender people, Muslims, women, and pretty much everyone else my previous social circle threw shade on as fellow human beings—crazy, I know.

I still reserve the right to hate Nazis, white supremecists, misogynists, and Neo-Congederates. Which are a lot in my area.

It's an ongoing process but I just have to ask myself, "What would Luke Skywalker do?" You know, prior to the Last Jedi.

edited 25th Apr '18 10:55:53 AM by CharlesPhipps

Although I was against fundamentalism and bigotry from the start, I too share the same values you practice today.

I'm proud of you for overcoming the hate, too.

edited 25th Apr '18 11:40:47 AM by TheWildWestPyro

It was an easy trap to fall into.

My parents were always moderates and I just wanted to be better...and just became worse.

For me, shame at what Christianity represented today made me firmly stick to being a progressive Christian.

What's you're stance on Partying on?

The movies would be my go-to for dumb but lovable if not for the sadly omnipresent homophobia.

Well personally I'm a leftist myself but i prefer that the working class is free to choose what religion as they choose but the state is atheist.

i prefer the state as secular i.e. not taking any stance on the subjct of religion.

But whatever floats your boat man.

Yeah, an atheist state is what the Soviet Union was. You probably meant agnostic, I would imagine.

An atheist state is one that imposes atheism on its citizenry. A secular state is one that (in theory) doesn't favor any one religion or atheism.

In practice of course, a secular state usually has trouble not being biased.

Part of the reason for that is because Religion and Culture are intertwined a lot so often there is going to be one faith that is going to be the leader amongst the others in a country.

Also, in a democratic state, people want the laws to reflect them.

Which was one of the problems a friend of mine had when the Iraq War happened.

Friend: "What if they want a Islamic state after the war is over?"

Me: "Isn't that their choice?"

A collective choice that endanger the lifes of several persons, ranging from non-Muslim persons to other muslims that don't fit into the regular social view (Ex. LGTB Muslims, woman). Unless they choice to follow a very liberal version of it (and obviously, egalitarians aren't trying to build theocratic states, unless you are the Order of Messiah

A Christian state would likely be as as, by the way.

Point is, "muh choice" is a shitty argument to defend things that endanger the lives of innocent persons.

edited 26th Apr '18 5:19:00 AM by KazuyaProta

This. Democracy isn't just dictatorship of the majority. Thus any democracy worthy of the name (as in what we define as a modern democracy) needs to be secular to some degree.

@raziel: There is always a leading religion in any country, but that doesn't mean that the leaders should be making laws with it in mind. At least in Europe, they seem to manage to do that very well.

@Charles Phipps: No, it shouldn't be their choice. Favouring one religion in government means creating disadvantages for those of others. And in a country like Iraq, I could certainly see an ultra-repressive government springing out of the idea of an Islamic State.

I'm going to disagree.

Not because I disagree that religious freedom should be an inalienable right but that attempting to impose secular governments or even divide groups based on assumption of conflict is a bad idea. It's basically the exact same thing that caused the creation of Iraq and Iran as well as India and Pakistan. It's the assumption that locals can't be allowed to govern themselves so religious disagreements must be resolved by an outside party dictating to them.

You know, despite the fact Persia was a cosmopolitan empire for thousands of years which got along fine despite having a religious basis. The removal of the right of self-determination and the infantalizing of the people is fundamentally a failure state from the beginning. The tyranny of the majority must be opposed by the love of the many not the tyranny of the few.

Which doesn't mean that governments can't be campaigned to reform or isolated or diplomatically spoken to but you can't dictate that sort of thing and have any sort of democracy taken seriously by the public.

edited 26th Apr '18 6:31:38 AM by CharlesPhipps