NationStates Jolt Archive

I was reading this commentary this morning:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-goldberg1dec01,0,1044301.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

and it raises the question of whether or not a belief system is essentially a "religion". I've raised this before on NS, where I asked if it was ok to get up in a government forum (a local hearing) and mention an idea, and then say it was a Christian ideal (at the hearing, I was told that Christianity is offensive and I should STFU). I then posited that perhaps it would have been better if I had justified my statement by saying that "Stalin said it was a good idea," which would not have gotten the objection on the basis of religion.

Here's the relevant part of the editorial, but you should read the whole thing at the link:

What I think secularists don't appreciate is how unfair this feels to religious people who believe that the secularists have, for all intents and purposes, a moral faith of their own. For example, back in the Dark Ages when John Ashcroft ruled with an iron fist, and decent people everywhere quaked at the prospect of borrowing "Catcher in the Rye" from the library lest they land in the gulag under the Patriot Act, Ashcroft was unable to ban a Gay Pride Month celebration at his own Department of Justice. I don't think that celebrating Gay Pride Month would lead to the end of civilization, but I don't think Christian Pride Month would either. And yet we all understand that Christian pride is a nonstarter on government premises.

The idea that liberalism operates — or should operate — like a secular religion, complete with its own dogmas, rites and customs, has a very old pedigree stretching from ancient Rome to such modern figures as August Comte, Herbert Croly, John Dewey and Thurman Arnold up to the liberal philosopher Richard Rorty. Without wading out into those weeds, what I think secular liberals could work harder at understanding is that whether contemporary liberalism is a secular religion or not, for its non-adherents it might as well be.

Liberals use the state to impose their morality all the time, and they get away with it because their faith isn't called a religion.

For an idea to be called a "religion" requires a belief in the supernatural, but it's absolutely true that people have religious-like beliefs in many a thing. Scott Adams (http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2005/11/intelligent_des.html), Dilbert cartoonist and avowed athiest, tried to have a discussion on his blog about ID and evolution, but was shouted down by the High Priests of Darwinism who demanded he believe unquestioningly in evolution and that discussion was heretical. When Darwinists start attacking those who believe in evolution for trying to have a legitimate conversation, idealogue dogma becomes clear.

believing in an idea is not religion in my opinion. religion brings in worship, not just belief...

believing in an idea is not religion in my opinion. religion brings in worship, not just belief...And the supernatural..

In anycase, any idea should be judged on it's own merit, not based on what beliefsystem it stems from. So morals based on religion should not be dismissed, nor accepted, based simply on being religious.
In howfar any morals should be imposed on the populace depends.

Belief in an idea which involves factual claims about the supernatural is a religion.

I was reading this commentary this morning:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-goldberg1dec01,0,1044301.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

and it raises the question of whether or not a belief system is essentially a "religion". I've raised this before on NS, where I asked if it was ok to get up in a government forum (a local hearing) and mention an idea, and then say it was a Christian ideal (at the hearing, I was told that Christianity is offensive and I should STFU). I then posited that perhaps it would have been better if I had justified my statement by saying that "Stalin said it was a good idea," which would not have gotten the objection on the basis of religion.

1. Secular beliefs are based on some value system, although most of the value systems for secularists do not rise to the level of a "religion."

2. Christianity is not "offensive." It is a recognized religion and should be recognized by all and sundry as a legitimate religion/value-system.

3. Anyone who tells you that you cannot carry your beliefs into the public arena in any manner which you choose is anti-democratic and should be told that they have no right to stop you.

4. Anyone who tries to stop you should be calmly and rationally confronted, but confronted nevertheless. As a Christian, you are commanded to love your neighbor, regardless of whether they are a Christian or a Philistine. This does not mean, however, that they can walk on you. There is no Christian prohibition against insisting that you have as much right to exercise your freedom under the law as anyone else. Calm, rational, kind disputation will win over most rational people.

Calm, rational, kind disputation will win over most rational people.
Unfortunately, rational people aren't the ones that object, only irrational ones. Then other irrational people from the other side object, and it becomes a shouting match.

Secluded you are totally right! On the point!

Well worship and submission that is!

Secluded you are totally right! On the point!

Well worship and submission that is!

You can worship without religion (you can worship a political candidate, in effect). You can also submit without religion (when your party insists that you toe the party line without question).

Unfortunately, rational people aren't the ones that object, only irrational ones. Then other irrational people from the other side object, and it becomes a shouting match.
That should never happen when a Christian is involved. If you can't win over your aversary with rationality and loving-kindness, you should ignore him/her.

Cute.

But if liberalism is a religion, then so are libertarianism, conservatism, etc.

This clearly gets silly fast.

2. Christianity is not "offensive."

well the whole, "your going to hell you heathen," part is kind of offensive :D

You can also submit without religion (when your party insists that you toe the party line without question).
Not if you truly believe your religion. And any political party which insists otherwise is asking you to place party above belief, something which should make you look for another party to belong to.

You can worship without religion (you can worship a political candidate, in effect). You can also submit without religion (when your party insists that you toe the party line without question).

So now all political parties are religions ..... :headbang: :headbang:

well the whole, "your going to hell you heathen," part is kind of offensive :D
I agree. A true Christian would never say such a thing. I tend to ignore those who do that. Well, as a "former Christian," I'm under no restraints to "give 'em hell," which I do on a regular basis. :D

1. Secular beliefs are based on some value system, although most of the value systems for secularists do not rise to the level of a "religion."

2. Christianity is not "offensive." It is a recognized religion and should be recognized by all and sundry as a legitimate religion/value-system.

3. Anyone who tells you that you cannot carry your beliefs into the public arena in any manner which you choose is anti-democratic and should be told that they have no right to stop you.

4. Anyone who tries to stop you should be calmly and rationally confronted, but confronted nevertheless. As a Christian, you are commanded to love your neighbor, regardless of whether they are a Christian or a Philistine. This does not mean, however, that they can walk on you. There is no Christian prohibition against insisting that you have as much right to exercise your freedom under the law as anyone else. Calm, rational, kind disputation will win over most rational people.


Agreed.

So now all political parties are religions ..... :headbang: :headbang:
NOT!

Agreed.
Wow! Just ... wow! [ faints! ] **THUD!** :D

So now all political parties are religions ..... :headbang: :headbang:

You're not answering the question.

If I bring up an idea in a government setting, and say, for example,

"We should help the poor,"

I have several phrases that I could add to the end of that phrase.

If I say, "Because Jesus said so," I get shouted down in a public hearing.

If I say, "Because Marx said so," there's no way they can tell me to STFU.

Tell me, what is the real difference in terms of either belief system's ability to impose dogma, attract "the faithful" believers who believe but do not understand and have never read?

And in the editorial, why do we know that proposing a Gay Pride Month is going to fly, when we know that proposing a Christian Pride Month is a non-starter?

Political systems etc. involve (implicitly or explicitly) a systematic series of beliefs about what people are like, and how they show act.

Religions do the same, but add in a lot of other stuff; belief, worship, supernatualistic thought etc etc. that don't exist in more prosiac systems.

Just because both systems of thought include (amongst other assumptions about the human condition, doesn't make them the same beast at all!

Belief in an idea which involves factual claims about the supernatural is a religion.
Perhaps ... maybe ... sometimes. It's difficult to make a generalization about this and should be approached on a case-by-case basis, IMHO.

You're not answering the question.

If I bring up an idea in a government setting, and say, for example,

"We should help the poor,"

I have several phrases that I could add to the end of that phrase.

If I say, "Because Jesus said so," I get shouted down in a public hearing.

If I say, "Because Marx said so," there's no way they can tell me to STFU.

Tell me, what is the real difference in terms of either belief system's ability to impose dogma, attract "the faithful" believers who believe but do not understand and have never read?

And in the editorial, why do we know that proposing a Gay Pride Month is going to fly, when we know that proposing a Christian Pride Month is a non-starter?

1. You know damn well your more likely to get shouted down at a hearing almost anywhere in America for saying "because Marx said so" than "because Jesus said so."

2. You shouldn't be shouted down either way. You are allowed to express your faith. Just don't expect others to necessarily agree with faith-based reasoning.

1. You know damn well your more likely to get shouted down at a hearing almost anywhere in America for saying "because Marx said so" than "because Jesus said so."

2. You shouldn't be shouted down either way. You are allowed to express your faith. Just don't expect others to necessarily agree with faith-based reasoning.

At a hearing in Herndon, where individuals were invited to speak at a public hearing on the establishment (or not) of a job center for illegal immigrants, I said that helping these people get a leg up in our community would be the Christian thing to do.

I was not only told to STFU by members of the audience, but I was ejected from the hearing by the panel. The reason given was that "we're not bringing religion into this".

You're not answering the question.

If I bring up an idea in a government setting, and say, for example,

"We should help the poor,"

I have several phrases that I could add to the end of that phrase.

If I say, "Because Jesus said so," I get shouted down in a public hearing.

If I say, "Because Marx said so," there's no way they can tell me to STFU.

Tell me, what is the real difference in terms of either belief system's ability to impose dogma, attract "the faithful" believers who believe but do not understand and have never read?

And in the editorial, why do we know that proposing a Gay Pride Month is going to fly, when we know that proposing a Christian Pride Month is a non-starter?
Stating that you advocate or oppose something "because Jesus said so" should be limited to discussions among fellow Christians, and even then used sparingly and always in love. Using such statments in a public forum will not leave you in a favorable light, either at the time you say it or in the future.

The real question here is: how can I advocate or oppose actions which I propose while alienating as few people as possible.

The law and the prophets are summed up in: "Love the Lord your God ... and love your neighbor as yourself." If you can't confont your opponents in a loving way I suggest you spend some time in your prayer closet and ask God to place a loving heart in you. :)

And in the editorial, why do we know that proposing a Gay Pride Month is going to fly, when we know that proposing a Christian Pride Month is a non-starter?

Christianity doesn't need a month of pride. In, I dunno, a hundred years, say, the gay folk won't either - they'll be accepted/mainstreamed into society; support for the notion of Gray Pride style marches/events among the gay community itself will become amusingly archaic, and seen as summat really old-fashioned. It's a social phenomenon that'll die out as the minority it seeks to help no longer needs that help.

Leave it alone, and it'll sort itself out :)

At a hearing in Herndon, where individuals were invited to speak at a public hearing on the establishment (or not) of a job center for illegal immigrants, I said that helping these people get a leg up in our community would be the Christian thing to do.

I was not only told to STFU by members of the audience, but I was ejected from the hearing by the panel. The reason given was that "we're not bringing religion into this".
I suggest in future you not mention the terms "Christian" or "Christianity." They're like red flags to some people and only serve to get you a cold shoulder, or worse ( as you have discovered ).

Look ... if God is God, he is in control of every situation and will work things out according to his will. He doesn't need your help. Ever! If you, either as a result of being a Christian or just because you believe it, advocate a particular course of action, you should be ready to advocate it based on logic. God is, above all else, a God of rationality and lovingkindness. Why would you want to be something else?? :confused:

At a hearing in Herndon, where individuals were invited to speak at a public hearing on the establishment (or not) of a job center for illegal immigrants, I said that helping these people get a leg up in our community would be the Christian thing to do.

I was not only told to STFU by members of the audience, but I was ejected from the hearing by the panel. The reason given was that "we're not bringing religion into this".

They acted wrongly (and illegally) in silencing and ejecting you. Period.

If I say, "Because Jesus said so," I get shouted down in a public hearing.

If I say, "Because Marx said so," there's no way they can tell me to STFU.

Tell me, what is the real difference in terms of either belief system's ability to impose dogma, attract "the faithful" believers who believe but do not understand and have never read? The latter at least implies an actual theory and argumentation based in social science; the former implies little to no argumentation, just 'god would like it'.
Why should we do what Jesus said? Why should we do what Marx said? Or why the opposite of either?
If a marxist can't argue why we should do what Marx says or suggests, then his opinion doesn't amount to much either. The same goes for someone that can't give further argumentation for why Jesus opinion counts. ("He's the son of God" is not a very convincing argument for people that don't belief it. There's bound to be better arguments.)

I was wrong (and illegal) for you to be silenced and/or ejected on those grounds. Period.
People were so hot under the collar about illegal immigrants at the time that I felt it would be a waste of time to explain it to them.

In a rational debate (social policy), it's unhelpful to bring up the irrational (religion) by way of a debating point. It's impolite to tell someone to shut up if they do bring it up, but you weren't helping by introducing the point.

You're not answering the question.

If I bring up an idea in a government setting, and say, for example,

"We should help the poor,"

I have several phrases that I could add to the end of that phrase.

If I say, "Because Jesus said so," I get shouted down in a public hearing.

If I say, "Because Marx said so," there's no way they can tell me to STFU.

I'd disagree with both reasons.

We should help the poor because it's the right thing to do, not because somebody tells us to.

In english we have the word "religion" to denote a certain sort of belief.

"Religion" means belief in a god or gods, or any concept of the divine, or in a spiritual leader.

Sometimes, the word 'religion' is used to compare the zeal of other beliefs to that which is commonly seen in religious people.

An example would be "He follows the party platform religiously."

It is not meant by this that the fellow believes the 'party platform' has some relevence to the divine, or is god, or of some spiritual relevence, rather that his devotion is similar to the devotion seen in religious people.

An analogy would be something like "Carmen was positively feline in that dress."

It is not meant that Carmen had whiskers and fur and walked on four legs, but rather that she was sleek and graceful, as a cat often is.

This is important legally, because a law forbidding cats could no more exclude Carmen than a law regarding religion be said to apply to the party-platform devotee.

I'd disagree with both reasons.

We should help the poor because it's the right thing to do, not because somebody tells us to.

The question I have is this:

If I say any one of the following,
A. "We should help the poor."
B. "We should help the poor because Jesus said so."
C. "We should help the poor because Marx said so."

why is B considered wrong to say? Isn't faith in a belief system (i.e, you could have faith that one day, the revolution will come and we will all live in a workers' paradise) essentially a religion? Especially if it comes with the overburden of dogma?

The question I have is this:

If I say any one of the following,
A. "We should help the poor."
B. "We should help the poor because Jesus said so."
C. "We should help the poor because Marx said so."

why is B considered wrong to say? Isn't faith in a belief system (i.e, you could have faith that one day, the revolution will come and we will all live in a workers' paradise) essentially a religion? Especially if it comes with the overburden of dogma?


Your options are misleading.

They should read:
We should help the poor.
We should help the poor because god said so in christianity, and it is the correct religion.
We should help the poor because Marx said so, and I think his ideas stand to reason.

The question I have is this:

If I say any one of the following,
A. "We should help the poor."
B. "We should help the poor because Jesus said so."
C. "We should help the poor because Marx said so."

why is B considered wrong to say? Isn't faith in a belief system (i.e, you could have faith that one day, the revolution will come and we will all live in a workers' paradise) essentially a religion? Especially if it comes with the overburden of dogma?


Your options are misleading.

They should read:
We should help the poor.
We should help the poor because god said so in christianity, and it is the correct religion.
We should help the poor because Marx said so, and I think his ideas stand to reason.

If I say any one of the following,
A. "We should help the poor."
B. "We should help the poor because Jesus said so."
C. "We should help the poor because Marx said so."

why is B considered wrong to say? Isn't faith in a belief system (i.e, you could have faith that one day, the revolution will come and we will all live in a workers' paradise) essentially a religion? Especially if it comes with the overburden of dogma?
C is wrong too. You don't do it because anybody said so; you do it because it's a good idea and because those people need help. Proclaiming the word of some middle-class toff 200 years ago or an insightful jew-come-buddhist 2000 years ago to be the most important reason for acting such is grossly negligent and will be construed as offensive, no matter who it was you referred to.

Anyway, what ultimately separates religion from idea is a sense of Identity. Religions are groupings of people who think along the same lines on spiritual issues and who congregate to discuss, think about and share ideas on that mindset. All a religion is is a label that one adopts for one's self based on his train of metaphysical thought.

In that respect, there is a great separation between idea and religion. Ideas do not involve aligning yourself with any particular group.

I'd disagree with both reasons.

We should help the poor because it's the right thing to do, not because somebody tells us to.
Who says it's the right thing to do? If someone says "I don't think helping the poor is the right thing to do," would you tell them they're wrong? On what grounds? You're assuming a societal, if not universal morality.

Is that religion? I dunno. But it sounds like dogma, albeit good (and true) dogma.

Your options are misleading.

They should read:
We should help the poor.
We should help the poor because god said so in christianity, and it is the correct religion.
We should help the poor because Marx said so, and I think his ideas stand to reason.Mm, not necessarily. Kind of jumping the gun there.

What if an ecumenical group of Muslims, Jews, and Christians were advisors in said hearing and said, "We should help the poor because God said so." They certainly don't mean "'it' is the correct religion" because they're from three different religions which happen to believe that God wants people to help the poor. Should they be ejected from the hearing as well?

Or what if an ecumenical spiritual group said, "We should help the poor because it is spiritually good." Is that "too religious" for a public hearing? Are they implying that there is only one spirituality? Is it any different from saying helping the poor is right, which really means "We should help the poor because it is right, and someone who doesn't help the poor is wrong."?

It's all dogma. Maybe not all religious, but dogma nonetheless.

I didn't read the whole thread-so forgive me if I'm repeating something that was already said...
Jesus is a controversial person; He is seen in many different ways by many different people-by some He is seen as a Saviour, by others as a good man, and then there are those who view Him as a lunatic/false prophet, etc. So to validate an idea using ideas established by Jesus, or the religion that was formed after Him is going to cause some to automatically disregard and take offense to the argument. After all, why dwould one care what someone thinks if you don't have a certain amount of respect for that person?
Marx on the other hand is typically seen in a specific way-as a theorist who had some valid points (as well as some invalid ones)...you may agree or disagree w/ his thoughts but ultimately most have to acknowledge that they were widely accepted by some and to an certain extent are valid. Regardless of whether you like his theories, you most likely won't see him as a liar...he tried to spread his thoughts, his personal beliefs-saying you do not agree does not necessarily mean that you lose respect for his work.
Jesus said that He was/is God-the stakes are higher; if you disagree w/ that statement, you are most likely going to disagree w/ most of His beliefs and will not see Him as a figure of respect (the liar, lunatic or Saviour theory) and therefore have no reason to consider arguments supported by Him valid on that bases

Mm, not necessarily. Kind of jumping the gun there.

...

It's all dogma. Maybe not all religious, but dogma nonetheless.
Well, perhaps. But there's something about saying "My book tells me so" that implies that you're only out for yourself, and that helping out the other person is just a necessary evil to you that you have to undergo in order to achieve this self-gratification.

Well, perhaps. But there's something about saying "My book tells me so" that implies that you're only out for yourself, and that helping out the other person is just a necessary evil to you that you have to undergo in order to achieve this self-gratification.
I think you might be implying a straw man of Christianity here, one that only helps people so they can get into heaven. Most Christians I know see heaven as a reward, but attaining heaven isn't the goal of life. The goal of life is to do what is right, what is loving, and social justice being a key part of that. Gaining heavenly grace is a great benefit to living a godly life, but even the "faith alone" Christians don't deny that out of faith, hope, and love, the greatest of these is love.

I think you might be implying a straw man of Christianity here, one that only helps people so they can get into heaven.
No, I'm simply giving the implication of the statement that people do things because Jesus/God said so. If you did it because it's a good idea, and it just so happened that you were made aware of this good idea by his teaching, then fair enough. But saying you do something because he tells you to do it implies a motive directly related to the fact that Jesus/God/Whoever is the one that's saying it, which in turn negates the possibility of a motive related to the individual who would benefit from the action.