4 ms·

The world will be better off when we abolish freedom of belief? That doesn't sound like a world I'd want to live in.

visarga 6y ago
There's a long way from freedom of belief to the kind of identity politics practiced by religious groups. Ironically religious people are under the risk of getting cancelled by their own group if they dare wrongthink, so they are less free.
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  >There's a long way from freedom of belief to the kind of identity politics practiced by religious groups. Ironically religious people are under the risk of getting cancelled by their own group if they dare wrongthink, so they are less free. Are we discussing organized religions or political parties? Your comment could apply to either.
whalesalad 6y ago
When I say abolish big religion I mean the way it’s integrated so tightly in society. The war on drugs, abortion, non profit tax avoidance, so many fucked up things stem from the belief that my religion is better than yours and you need to believe what I believe. You can believe whatever the hell you want - but it’s not for you or society or anyone else to decide how I can live my life.
- bobthechef 6y ago
  > When I say abolish big religion I mean the way it’s integrated so tightly in society. There has never existed a society that didn't have a religion. Everyone has a religion, what they take to be the highest good, what they worship. It just so happens that those who naively brush off what they take to be "religion" simply, probably tacitly, take on some vulgar and crude variety. > The war on drugs, abortion, non profit tax avoidancee, so many fucked up things You realize that your views are also views, right? You presume some kind of objectivity while denying that right to others. Sounds kind of intolerant to me, especially if we go by your own prejudices. You also appear to have scapegoated religion for various things you don't like (mind you, things like the opposition to abortion is a moral question, not a sectarian one, though sadly, the myth that it is seems to persist, probably because it allows militant pro-choice types to exploit "religious freedom" as a way to frame it as a "private matter" since religion under a liberal regime is subordinated to liberal doctrine, which has the interesting effect of elevating liberalism to the rank of state religion). > the belief that my religion is better than yours and you need to believe what I believe Hold on. Two things are being conflated. First, if there is one truth, then either a religion is true (or at least contains some truth), or it isn't (or contains falsehoods). That which is true should be accepted, that which isn't shouldn't. The idea that religion is just a thing we believe simply because we wish to believe it is absurd. You believe something because you have good reasons to believe it, not because you wish it to be the case. Second, what do you mean by "you need to believe what I believe"? This has nothing to do with what others believe. It has everything to do with whether something is true. Of course, you shouldn't try to force anyone to believe anything, even if it is or you think it is true, though any society will punish or constrain someone _acting_ on wrong beliefs in some cases. All legal and judicial systems do this, obviously, and they can do this with a tangible tenacity. I'd also add that there what falls under "religion" differs enough that it makes no sense to criticize "religion" categorically. This kind of approach typically conceals a particular real or imagined religion that the person in question has in mind, perhaps particular experiences, and from which that person hastily generalizes to "religion" as a category. The error here should be obvious, especially if you take into consideration what I've already written, namely, that everyone has some kind of religion, however vague or crude or mundane or insane.
- scythe 6y ago
  >The war on drugs WoD wasn't started by religious authorities at all, but by (secular) technocrats. Whether the motivation was really public health or political persecution is disputed, but blaming the Church is just silly. Some quasi-religious justification was used, but that's just political strategy. >non profit tax avoidance All religions are guaranteed equivalent tax privileges in the United States Constitution, as Madison intended and the courts have affirmed.

There's a long way from freedom of belief to the kind of identity politics practiced by religious groups. Ironically religious people are under the risk of getting cancelled by their own group if they dare wrongthink, so they are less free.

throwaway0a5e 6y ago
>There's a long way from freedom of belief to the kind of identity politics practiced by religious groups. Ironically religious people are under the risk of getting cancelled by their own group if they dare wrongthink, so they are less free. Are we discussing organized religions or political parties? Your comment could apply to either.

whalesalad 6y ago

When I say abolish big religion I mean the way it’s integrated so tightly in society. The war on drugs, abortion, non profit tax avoidance, so many fucked up things stem from the belief that my religion is better than yours and you need to believe what I believe. You can believe whatever the hell you want - but it’s not for you or society or anyone else to decide how I can live my life.

bobthechef 6y ago
> When I say abolish big religion I mean the way it’s integrated so tightly in society. There has never existed a society that didn't have a religion. Everyone has a religion, what they take to be the highest good, what they worship. It just so happens that those who naively brush off what they take to be "religion" simply, probably tacitly, take on some vulgar and crude variety. > The war on drugs, abortion, non profit tax avoidancee, so many fucked up things You realize that your views are also views, right? You presume some kind of objectivity while denying that right to others. Sounds kind of intolerant to me, especially if we go by your own prejudices. You also appear to have scapegoated religion for various things you don't like (mind you, things like the opposition to abortion is a moral question, not a sectarian one, though sadly, the myth that it is seems to persist, probably because it allows militant pro-choice types to exploit "religious freedom" as a way to frame it as a "private matter" since religion under a liberal regime is subordinated to liberal doctrine, which has the interesting effect of elevating liberalism to the rank of state religion). > the belief that my religion is better than yours and you need to believe what I believe Hold on. Two things are being conflated. First, if there is one truth, then either a religion is true (or at least contains some truth), or it isn't (or contains falsehoods). That which is true should be accepted, that which isn't shouldn't. The idea that religion is just a thing we believe simply because we wish to believe it is absurd. You believe something because you have good reasons to believe it, not because you wish it to be the case. Second, what do you mean by "you need to believe what I believe"? This has nothing to do with what others believe. It has everything to do with whether something is true. Of course, you shouldn't try to force anyone to believe anything, even if it is or you think it is true, though any society will punish or constrain someone _acting_ on wrong beliefs in some cases. All legal and judicial systems do this, obviously, and they can do this with a tangible tenacity. I'd also add that there what falls under "religion" differs enough that it makes no sense to criticize "religion" categorically. This kind of approach typically conceals a particular real or imagined religion that the person in question has in mind, perhaps particular experiences, and from which that person hastily generalizes to "religion" as a category. The error here should be obvious, especially if you take into consideration what I've already written, namely, that everyone has some kind of religion, however vague or crude or mundane or insane.
scythe 6y ago
>The war on drugs WoD wasn't started by religious authorities at all, but by (secular) technocrats. Whether the motivation was really public health or political persecution is disputed, but blaming the Church is just silly. Some quasi-religious justification was used, but that's just political strategy. >non profit tax avoidance All religions are guaranteed equivalent tax privileges in the United States Constitution, as Madison intended and the courts have affirmed.