|
Make me quit if this is too off topic. It would be nice if there were a place on SA where it was possible to debate and discuss orthodox Christian or right-of-US-center politics. Not necessarily positively, but at least in good faith. Some sort of safe space, if you will. This thread isn't the appropriate place though, and I think it's literally bannable in D&D, even though the first post would just result in ten pages of impolite versions of "go away" anyway. Something for the suggestion box for the post-Lowtax era.
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2020 00:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 21:29 |
|
|
This place is fine for "what CNN means when they say "religious voters"" religion discussion, just not for the politics.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2020 01:47
|
|
|
I know you already said this is not the right place, but I really don't want this thread to get political.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2020 01:52
|
|
|
Separation of church and state?
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2020 02:43
|
|
|
I think there's an unavoidable intersection between faith and the political (for all that some traditions, my own as an example, have tried to avoid that intersection as much as possible). It's inevitable that our conversations will drift in that direction from time to time, and sometimes that works out and sometimes that doesn't. I also think our first watchword in this sacred space should be respect for one another, and that includes respect for other peoples' desire (and mine) to not turn this thread into the Old Time D&D Gospel Hour or its CSPAM equivalent. As for whether there should (or can) be a place for honestly sharing and grappling with those views we may have that are outside of Something Awful's mainstream, I think it's a nice thought, but I don't see how that doesn't either become an echo chamber or yet another internet battleground without much more hands-on (and rigid) moderation than I suspect anyone here is willing to give.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2020 02:47
|
|
|
docbeard posted:I think there's an unavoidable intersection between faith and the political (for all that some traditions, my own as an example, have tried to avoid that intersection as much as possible). It's inevitable that our conversations will drift in that direction from time to time, and sometimes that works out and sometimes that doesn't. Over the years I’ve quoted the following from The History of Christian Thought in D&D when these conflicts arise there: “FIRST, the natural thought, which is in every religion. SECOND, the methodological development of doctrines. THIRD, the acceptance of some doctrines as protective doctrines against distortions. FOURTH, the legalization of these doctrines as parts of the canonic law. FIFTH, the acceptance of these doctrines as the foundation not only of the Church but also of the state, because the state has no other content than the content the Church gives it., so that he who is supposed to undermine this content not only undermines the Church but also the state. He is not only a heretic who must be excommunicated; he is also a criminal who must be delivered into the hands of the civil authorities to punish him as a criminal. Now this was the state of the dogma, against which the Enlightenment was fighting – not so much the Reformation, which was still in the same line, but certainly the Enlightenment; and ever since, all liberal thinking has been characterized by trying to avoid dogma, and this also was supported by the development of science and the necessity to leave science and philosophy complete freedom in order to give them the possibility of their creative growth.” I don’t think we can avoid politics entirely. If we are ultimately concerned for ( have faith in) a particular religious content (and for me that is Jesus as the Christ) our political concerns are consequences of our ultimate concern. But we can be aware of the process dogma arises from. And we should not elevate our constructions above our brothers and sisters. But sometimes we can not avoid choosing. And sometimes we have to protect ourselves. We should know we can’t come out of it innocent and we should not pretend that we can.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2020 05:28
|
|
|
From my own initiate reading in Buddhist history I can tell you that periods of political power for Buddhism tended to conclude with eras described as "the sacking of the monasteries" or "abolish Buddhism and destroy Shakyamuni" and that this seems to be a general trend across all faith boundaries.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2020 07:15
|
|
|
Part of the region that I, the lapsest of all Catholics and someone who, while respectful of faith, is intensely skeptical of the role that it plays in society, ended up IK'ing this thread is that I've got some history wrangling these sorts of issues that are political third rails. One of the things I had to do in TFR was separate out the politics from the guns. This is something that many people have, very loudly, proclaimed is fundamentally impossible. But, when I became a mod over there, the politics chat was tearing the forum apart. We're talking debates on, yes, abortion alongside topics like whether gay weddings or firearm rights are more important and with all the fallout that happens when someone decides another poster is a monster and has to proclaim their moral failings every other time they cross paths in unrelated threads. Part of the success that I had over there was recognizing that no, you can't fully remove the politics, but what you can do is remove the partisan bullshit. There are threads that get what I like to call "politics adjacent." We have a thread on mass shootings and gun control. We have a thread for talking about "assholes in the industry" aka the sorts of firearms businesses that think using a Nazi symbol for their logo is a good idea. We have another gun laws / gun control thread that is very narrowly for talking about the legal ramifications of legislation, and we even have a cold war/ military thread that talks a lot about war and foreign policy. The key in all of this is to separate the issue from the partisan screeching points. I think this comes across in the rules for the gun control thread: quote:1) don’t be a dick. People get heated about this topic. Still, don’t use this as an excuse to be the worst person you can be. You can’t have a conversation with someone if you are screaming at them. Consider this the threads golden rule. It’s also the one that is the most open to interpretation by me. It also helps to have a mod who is willing to let a political derail breathe a bit until things start getting stupid, at which point I metaphorically tap on the rules sign and make a serious face. The end result is that when those issues come up people tend to tiptoe a bit and consider their words carefully and focus on actually articulating points without using any of the various intellectual shortcuts that partisanship provides. This means that the derails that do happen tend to be productive and good discussions (until they're not, at which point they stop) and it also gives TFR cover for talking about politically contentious things without making them overtly political. What I'm saying is that there are plenty of places where this thread could get politically adjacent in some interesting ways. The open letter from that defrocked Mennonite pastor, for example, gets to the heart of where modern social justice issues intersect a lot of traditional communities of faith, and it's an intersection that has become a major political wedge issue, both in the United States and elsewhere. But, if we can have that conversation without directly invoking the parties we don't have to get into the other dumb wedge issues that will start a thousand derails and acrimony. To take a parallel from the TFR book, just because we're having a conversation about how gay rights intersects faith doesn't mean we care about your opinions on gun control, even though "what do you think of gay marriage" and "what do you think of guns" have become part of the same basket of partisan articles of faith due to how the two party political system works.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2020 12:44
|
|
|
As an American, I always find any religious political discussion runs up against the fact that no one has the right to forcibly convert or enforce dogma on others. As such I feel most of the concerns of faith are not directly relevant to the concerns of politics beyond ensuring religious freedom, because absolutely nobody should want to see a rerun of what happens when anyone uses the state's monopoly on violence to enforce their own dogma.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2020 01:13
|
|
|
Even religious freedom can get pretty political. Can I use peyote in my worship? Run a temple for ritual prostitution? Refuse to pay taxes that fund wars? Refuse to bake a cake? Proselytize in public accomodations? Endorse a candidate from the pulpit? Have an arrow toward Mecca in a government office? Be a dude and marry two women? Wear a veil in an ID photo? Some of these we've decided yes on, others no, and others are hot topics. It's a tough one, even if it's not literally "blasphemy is punishable by death".
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2020 01:56
|
|
|
“Religious freedom” relegates religion to being only an adjective modifying a noun “freedom”. I think it was an intentional reframing from “freedom of religion” by the “science of freedom” crowd.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2020 02:23
|
|
|
in america the term "religious freedom" has recently been coopted by far-right christians to mean "i get to ignore civil rights laws if it involves a minority i don't like". this started right after obamacare passed, because of the provisions in it that mandated insurance coverage for family planning treatments. when it really gained steam though was when courts started striking down all the anti-gay restrictions in state and federal laws also i am sitting here giggling at the line "every day i open palm slam a rosary into my purse. i count every bead and i count every bead hard"
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2020 02:55
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:in america the term "religious freedom" has recently been coopted by far-right christians to mean "i get to ignore civil rights laws if it involves a minority i don't like". this started right after obamacare passed, because of the provisions in it that mandated insurance coverage for family planning treatments. when it really gained steam though was when courts started striking down all the anti-gay restrictions in state and federal laws The Koch’s (though I suppose it’s now only Charles)push it hard. Now it is one of those things they insert in various university programs, the same way they do with economics via donations. I haven’t found a smoking gun direct connection to them being behind it’s far right usage after Obamacare passed, but my suspicion is they inserted it there too. I think the key for them is the: I get to ignore laws I don’t like part. In a lot of ways Charles Koch is like the Paul of libertarianism.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2020 19:49
|
|
|
I think some of these discussions can be good in terms of working backward: taking for granted, if you like, what you believe, but trying to figure out why and understanding the nature of the parameters for that belief. I do this often, and I know people who are very offended by it, even we always agreed on the conclusion, by dint of exploring how I arrived at that conclusion and even admitting where there can be hypocrisies or soft logic. I actually find it useful because then if I am challenged on a position, I can explain how I came to it. Sometimes I do even change my mind, or can explain where I could change my mind if other facts were changed (and which). Someone brought up the gay wedding cake example, and I think at one point I spent about eight hours sitting on a log in the woods working out exactly where I stood on that and why.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2020 20:04
|
|
|
Pick some people have what they believe very much tied up with who they are. When they haven’t done what you’re talking about, doing it can be seen as a threat to who they are. That soft logic or small hypocrisy can be seen a threat to the self. Many people throw the baby out with the bath water, a small crack turns into a conversion experience to something else. They have a hard time getting people that, that doesn’t happen for.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2020 20:12
|
|
|
I also have ask something, do you have a learning difference? There is a phrase “qualitative difference in the experience of reality” that applies to people with a variety of brain differences. That gap can make it very hard have real communication in discussions, without a great deal of intentional practice.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2020 20:19
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:I also have ask something, do you have a learning difference? I am not familiar with this phraseology.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2020 20:25
|
|
|
Pick posted:I am not familiar with this phraseology. It’s Kazimierz Dąbrowski.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2020 20:27
|
|
|
Another concept from his work that I’ve personally found useful is “overexcitability.”
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2020 20:30
|
|
|
Pick, we are obligated to ask if you have opinions on silly hats.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2020 20:33
|
|
|
Worthleast posted:Pick, we are obligated to ask if you have opinions on silly hats. The regalia is one of the best parts of Catholicism. If you don't have a triregnum what are you even doing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2020 20:34
|
|
|
Pick posted:The regalia is one of the best parts of Catholicism. If you don't have a triregnum what are you even doing. Welcome home.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2020 20:41
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:Another concept from his work that I’ve personally found useful is “overexcitability.” I'm still not following. My position on the faith, even as waffley Catholic (always see myself as "Catholic", but how Catholic waxes and wanes), is that it is the responsibility of the Church to be correct, not necessarily palatable. And it is the responsibility of Catholic parishioners to uphold the Church in situations where it is correct, even if they are unpalatable. And the only way to make any good determinations is incessant intense good-faith theology. However, I have been known to disagree with the Church on whether they have the information and tools available to accurately determine the will of God, or whether their determination was genuinely accomplished in good faith*, which is sufficiently heretical for me. There are situations where I think the Church doesn't have the information or tools available for the determination they claim to have made, and furthermore fails on the "good-faith" standard. This puts me in an insanely weird space as someone who had great respect for Pope Benedict XVI despite thinking he was extremely wrong about many things, and actually less respect for Pope Francis despite agreeing with him more often. *I don't think this can be done with 100% exactitude for a variety of cultural reasons hence why the Church needs to be in a constant state of self-assessment. Pick fucked around with this message at 21:11 on Aug 15, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2020 21:08
|
|
|
The Catholic Church is in an odd time, though the more history I read the less concerned I am about navigating the present difficulties. For myself, that theological self-assessment means fidelity to the traditional teachings and practices. For you it might mean something else, and a third thing to Biden, for instance. Also, disagreement and dislike of the Pope is pretty common in church history.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2020 21:31
|
|
|
Pick posted:I'm still not following. It’s more just a general observation about you on a variety of subjects. You catch a lot of undeserved poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2020 21:49
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:in america the term "religious freedom" has recently been coopted by far-right christians to mean "i get to ignore civil rights laws if it involves a minority i don't like". this started right after obamacare passed, because of the provisions in it that mandated insurance coverage for family planning treatments. when it really gained steam though was when courts started striking down all the anti-gay restrictions in state and federal laws Would you consider Little Sisters of the Poor Far-Right Christians? Obviously, there's room for debate about whether Hobby Lobby or Koch industries should be exempt from legal requirements based on religious freedom, but I feel if there is one group who has been getting treated vindictively in American politics over the Obamacare Contraception mandate, it would be the Little Sisters. Worthleast posted:The Catholic Church is in an odd time, though the more history I read the less concerned I am about navigating the present difficulties. For myself, that theological self-assessment means fidelity to the traditional teachings and practices. For you it might mean something else, and a third thing to Biden, for instance. I am trying to get back into the habit of reading the Bible nightly from front to back, but one of the more illuminating discoveries I made as I worked through Kings and Chronicles was how often, and quickly the Kingdom of Israel, then Judah and Israel would fall into sin/idolatry/apostasy society-wide. It really struck me and made me realize 'our times are not so unique'. It's very easy to fall, both on a society and a personal level, something I'm trying to remind myself every day.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2020 23:17
|
|
|
Crazy Joe Wilson posted:Would you consider Little Sisters of the Poor Far-Right Christians? Obviously, there's room for debate about whether Hobby Lobby or Koch industries should be exempt from legal requirements based on religious freedom, but I feel if there is one group who has been getting treated vindictively in American politics over the Obamacare Contraception mandate, it would be the Little Sisters. No, the Little Sisters don't get a pass, either. They're an employer, and their employees don't have to agree with their religious views. They don't get to use their religion as an excuse to discriminate any more than anyone else does.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2020 23:38
|
|
|
We can argue about whether it should be true, but it's pretty well settled law that it isn't true. Churches do have a right to discriminate in their employment decisions under quite broad circumstances. This stands to reason: a mosque looking for an imam would presumably reject application from a Catholic priest. A skeptical society could discriminate against snake handlers. Freedom of religion is in the constitution after all; employment law isn't. So some of the big legal issues these days are things like at what point a person is a religious worker or just a regular worker who does a job for a religious organization. It's not obvious, which is why there's federal cases about it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2020 00:45
|
|
|
Tias posted:Well, I'm a norse heathen and our religion has a cross-dressing god king who is mostly into voyeurism and singing magic songs, so uhh not big on the homophobia. You'll always be recognized in my congregation, for what it's worth. Congratulations! Not at all! We’re both along the agnostic-atheist spectrum so it’ll just be a courthouse affair and then a party whenever it’s safe to do so; I hang out in these threads since I have an interest in religion mostly due to history, and the thread is just so wholesome and welcoming (and midwestern, but I repeat myself), besides the Bad Times. My boyfriend is a gay neuroscientist and he’s very skeptical of religion, and I very much understand queer hesitation about organized religion, even though his mom is a Presbyterian minister/sociologist who’s a bit of a badass and was marrying queers in the 80s, plus my boyfriend’s godparents are a gay couple and his sister’s lesbians. I’m more accepting of theists, and have moved him a bit, partially using his mother as an example of, uh, more Christlike Christians—sorry for this phrasing, I don’t wanna drag this thread down and have cyrano tap the sign angrily at me. Anyways, thanks for the well wishes y’all. It was heartwarming. Oh, and docbeard—you were right, I had seen that Mennonite link via you before—but I teared up the first time, and did it again.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2020 03:22
|
|
|
  
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2020 03:36
|
|
|
I fully admit I'm and absolutist when it comes to the separation of church and state. If religious organizations want to preach politics from the pulpit, then they should forfeit their 501(c)(3) status like any other political nonprofit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2020 06:54
|
|
|
Listening to Alan Moore of comic book fame, he described religion from it's latin roots. "LIG" which means to bind, as in ligament. "Re" meant together, (I think i could quoting him wrong). Regardless of the details, religion means being *bound together as one*. Anything could be a religion. The republican party as a religion, vegetarians, the conventions of classic car enthusiasts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2020 14:26
|
|
|
excellent bird guy posted:Listening to Alan Moore of comic book fame, he described religion from it's latin roots. "LIG" which means to bind, as in ligament. "Re" meant together, (I think i could quoting him wrong). Regardless of the details, religion means being *bound together as one*. Anything could be a religion. The republican party as a religion, vegetarians, the conventions of classic car enthusiasts. Sure, in the narrow sense that religions create communities. What you're leaving out is that for many religion is based on a genuine faith and belief in the thing, whether it's the Judeo-Christian God or the fact that Muhammad is his most recent prophet or that creation is a cycle of rebirth that we strive to escape. I would argue that one of the key things separating religious belief from secular conviction is that element. You may find enthusiasts who believe that a 1966 Ford Mustang is the finest automobile ever manufactured, but I doubt you will find many that believe it is the key to the salvation of their immortal soul. I don't know that I could describe myself as religious any more, beyond the generic cultural sense that being raised Catholic makes you part of a community and creates the backdrop for certain key life events. But something I constantly remind my more ardently anti-religious friends is that there are a great many people out there who are genuinely faithful. They believe what they believe with full sincerity in a way that really is fundamentally different from what I believe about politics or science or food or any of the other poo poo that I have opinions about. When the faithful say that "There is no god but God and Muhammad is the messenger of God" (or conversely "We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, and one Lord, Jesus Christ") they really, deeply believe that in a way that arguing and persuading isn't really going to change. This is the whole reason why religious freedom is protected in the American constitution and other similar documents world-wide. A state realistically can't require you to believe something in that way, nor can it prevent you from believing it, short of expelling you from its borders or killing you. The best solution is to just set aside religious matters as not being the domain of the state and try to create a framework that allows people to live alongside each other and politely ignore the articles of faith that they all disagree with.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2020 16:37
|
|
|
America has a bad track record of politely ignoring our differences. We tend to totally ignore our neighbors instead and otherize them. It’s bad within our country and much worse when it comes to other nations and peoples.Liquid Communism posted:If religious organizations want to preach politics from the pulpit, then they should forfeit their 501(c)(3) status like any other political nonprofit. I think the exact opposite: they should pay taxes (even my church) and they should show the connection of their faith to political issues (even ones I disagree with).
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2020 17:12
|
|
|
Double post, but news today that Fr James Martin SJ will be speaking at the DNC. Not the typical case most Americans have in mind when we complain about religion and politics mixing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2020 22:33
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:But something I constantly remind my more ardently anti-religious friends is that there are a great many people out there who are genuinely faithful. They believe what they believe with full sincerity in a way that really is fundamentally different from what I believe about politics or science or food or any of the other poo poo that I have opinions about. When the faithful say that "There is no god but God and Muhammad is the messenger of God" (or conversely "We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, and one Lord, Jesus Christ") they really, deeply believe that in a way that arguing and persuading isn't really going to change. I knew a guy from gaming groups who later became a Catholic priest and we have regular chats about religious adjacent topics (he's very busy, of course). He said once that he had always appreciated that even if I did not believe a word of his religion, he never had to feel like he had to APOLOGIZE for being a believer to me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2020 22:42
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:It’s more just a general observation about you on a variety of subjects. You catch a lot of undeserved poo poo. Yes, but it's for a few reasons, although I do think a lot apply here or are relevant to how I view The FaithTM. For example, I think there's a huge divide between is and ought, which is highly relevant to matters of the faith. I think that you can come to conclusions that make you personally uncomfortable but are the truth of matters and have to be accepted as the truth of matters. I believe the truth can withstand any amount of evaluation and dissection and that it is never wrong to be seeking the truth. I believe that a person must accept when they choose to do evil and acknowledge they have chosen to do evil, and that this is better at more forgivable in the eyes of God than inventing bullshit reasons to excuse everything you've ever done when you knew full well that you were engaging in evil behavior. Etc.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2020 01:29
|
|
|
excellent bird guy posted:Listening to Alan Moore of comic book fame, he described religion from it's latin roots. "LIG" which means to bind, as in ligament. "Re" meant together, (I think i could quoting him wrong). Regardless of the details, religion means being *bound together as one*. Anything could be a religion. The republican party as a religion, vegetarians, the conventions of classic car enthusiasts. Personally I wouldn't focus too heavily on the etymology of words, that's not what determines what they mean. The Latin word religio meant something different than what religion is taken to mean, but even defining what that means is hard. If you emphasize rituals and customs too much, the term ends up encompassing too many things. Political parties or hobbies like you mention are examples of that. If you instead emphasize faith, you may exclude a lot of people; if you don't believe in any spiritual being but perform the rituals, is that not religion? Many people may take part even if they don't believe. That's why it's been hard to come up with a good definition of religion. I think Moore is being a bit flippant here. But also I do think it's wrong when things like political beliefs, moral beliefs like vegetarianism are sometimes called religion to deride them as "irrational" and superstitious, as if the irreligious are completely free of ideology and are able to understand the world as a set of objective facts. That seems to be how a lot of "New Atheists" consider religion. Grevling fucked around with this message at 07:34 on Aug 17, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2020 07:24
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Sure, in the narrow sense that religions create communities. I hate to even respond because I'm going to bring up Anton LaVey. He argued that it was the pageant, the rituals that gave religions meaning.I don't remember exactly what he said (and I'm not a huge proponent or fan) but it was something like People counting their Spiderman vintage issues every night might be in a similar mindset as a Catholic counting the rosary. The religious fervor wouldn't be exact: *salvation of your eternal soul vs the benefits of an all vegan diet*. Not the literal transposition of outcomes but the processes are very similar. As Nietzche said "God is dead," in the sociological sense. The common people don't share a religion that binds them together as a unified people. So that part of our brain is trying to fill a big hole, which is why there are people into so many strong interests that dominate their life. - And these views are not necessarily my own and are not original to me at all, personally I *don't know* anything.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2020 07:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 21:29 |
|
|
Grevling posted:Personally I wouldn't focus too heavily on the etymology of words, that's not what determines what they mean. The Latin word religio meant something different than what religion is taken to mean, but even defining what that means is hard. If you emphasize rituals and customs too much, the term ends up encompassing too many things. Political parties or hobbies like you mention are examples of that. If you instead emphasize faith, you may exclude a lot of people; if you don't believe in any spiritual being but perform the rituals, is that not religion? Many people may take part even if they don't believe. That's why it's been hard to come up with a good definition of religion. I think Moore is being a bit flippant here. That's a great point. I believe you. Moore had a Brittany Spears doll head taped to a snake body, little magical fetish while he was making his point. He called the Brittany Spears snake his goddess or something, so yea major irony points for that. I think it's okay to be irrational and superstitious. I know I watched a lot of youtube atheism in 2010, so I get it. I'm not trying to be on a group of people for being 'woo-woo' as I'm a little woo woo myself.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2020 07:50
|
|