13 ms·

The assumption is that we [Americans] can embrace our hyphenated identities without disloyalty to a broader national project. An assumption that seems false in

The assumption is that we [Americans] can embrace our hyphenated identities without disloyalty to a broader national project. An assumption that seems false in light of your (American) current events. Perhaps France has noticed the result of allowing religion a place in politics. It's easy to see countries where this has been very retrograde (eg. Afghanistan and (I'm afraid) America); it's not easy to find countries with strong religious politics and a modern or rational outlook :( (And yes, I anticipate there might be a reaction to this, civil debate being rare these days.)

nix23 4y ago
>it's not easy to find countries with strong religious politics and a modern or rational outlook Maybe Bhutan? But it's a really special situation there (Kingdom etc) but modern for sure not (but is modern really good? Depends probably what's the meaning of it)
_8j50 4y ago
Like many things I think balance is key. Unless the government is theocratic religious organiztions have no place in it. But individuals (elected or not) should fully operate and make decisions in accordance with their openly held beliefs. Whether that belief is conformant or influenced by organized religion is not relevant. What is important is whether or not their beliefs have been made known to those electing or appointing them. A government of the people must reflect the beliefs of the people. What if the people believe in sharia law and they are only a neighborhood in Marseille? That's what rights are for, they are there to protect the minority, the people must agree on rights that apply for everyone that cannot be overriden by popular support. Individual beliefs should not override rights of the people. What you see in many european countries and even in the US is open bigotry. Hatred and hostility to people of faith as a whole. "You can believe things but you can't practice them in public" you might as well make atheism the state religion like communist russia. No religion or lack thereof should be supported by the government, this includes not having a religion. Atheists should be allowed to run for office and practice their lack of religion as should a sharia law supporting muslim but neither shall infringe on the rights of the people. However they may well infringe on many aspects of people's lives that are not protected by law as rights. The west as a whole owes its way of life in some shape or form to religion because before atheism and secularism became mainstream like it is today every aspect of people lives was influenced by religion and in some cases it revolved around religion. Unless the claim is that the only accomplishments of civilization that count are ones made after secularism and prior accomplishments were not a stepping stone to post-secular accomplishments? Or is it that religion causes wars and all kinds of horrible things? I got news for you, people will find excuses to do all manners of evil and cruelty with or without religion. Both world wars and every american war were not caused by religion. Every civilization with or without religion has wars, genocide,etc.... we humans suck. The french themselves even to this day facilitate all manners of cruelty in africa without needing any religion to support their actions. It is a terrible excuse to appear superior to one's ancestors and avoid confronting the mess inherited from them.
- gxt 4y ago
  Dogmatism is incompatible with civilisation. > The west as a whole owes its way of life in some shape or form to religion You haven't gone far back enough in history to make that claim. Civilisation was destroyed by Christianity, and for a 1000 years, nothing happened, no progress except for a few individuals who dared question religion. > A government of the people must reflect the beliefs of the people. I have heard this my whole life. I have been struggling to understand this folly my whole life, because to me eyes, it is fundamentally a misunderstanding of correlation and causation. Generally ethical peoples focused on bettering themselves produced the democracies that led to this mad sentence. Now decades/century later people look at it at face value and fail to choose to better themselves, they only see their ego and call themselves the best, they say that's all there will ever be. It's false, it's a lie, and unchecked will lead to another dark age. We must choose, I choose to look at myself and see the good without forgetting the bad, I choose to improve upon myself, be inspired by others, sieve cultures, emulate the good, and learn for the terrible so as to never repeat it. Would I to fail to do this, I fear I will never understand existence, and would be a crime against the universe. Claiming to know what it is, is a lie, nobody knows. What we must do is figure it out. No religion will ever achieve that.
  - _8j50 4y ago
    > ... and for a 1000 years, nothing happened, no progress except for a few individuals who dared question religion. This is categorically untrue. The people you claim questioned religion merely questioned mainstream religion, galileo and newton were very very religious(as in organized!) and I could name many more. The Arab world and Chinese civilization contributed manu things that were foundational to western developments from mathematics to gunpowder and those people were very religious. I don't care what you believe and that is precisely my point. The madness I see and the source of so many modern problems is that people like you could not be bothered to convince your fellow voters of your beliefs. I guess what they say about becoming what you hate eventually is true. You don't believe people's beliefs should be represented by their govenrment unless that belief is correct according to you. Meet the old boss,same as the new boss? It is your line of thinking that has led to anti-vaxx people, flat earthers and climate change deniers because of the arrogance with which you demand you are right because of science and religion or anything not conforming to your correct view is madness. Your dismiss others and try to find any way to achieve your goals except to convince those who disagree with you because they are after all mad? Because it takes too long and too much effort? Because you don't know how to communicate your views to those you disagree with without insulting them and their beliefs? Not so different from catholics and manifest-destiny american Christians are you now, except they convinced enough people to carry through with their objectives? I am not trying to convince you about the plus side if religion but that the end or how correct you are is irrelevant. Short of civil wars and dictatorships you will just have to convince people and the government will just have to represent the beliefs of its people whatever the end maybe so long as the rights of the minority is respected.
tsol 4y ago
So basically no one is modern to you except secular Europe? You write off 70% of the world so easily.
rayiner 4y ago
The false assumption here is that there is a “broader national project.” The United States was never an Enlightenment experiment like modern France. It wasn’t about unifying a people through rationalism and science. After all, Massachusetts Puritans were one of the country’s key founding groups. More than one state had an established state church at the time of the American revolution. The United States was from its inception a very different project: a pluralistic society where different religious factions—Puritans in Massachusetts and Episcopalians in Maryland—could live alongside each other without going to war. Our “current events” illustrates the folly of subsequent attempts to make America—a place that has myriad distinct cultures even amongst supposedly “white” people—into a French-style unitary secular republic. Your comment about “retrograde” outcomes is pretty odd. America is by far the most religious country in the developed world—Americans pray daily at the same rate as people in Bangladesh (a place where daily prayer is a central aspect of the religion!) America is also the most successful country in the history of the world.
- drpixie 4y ago
  ...the most successful country in the history of the world. Looking from outside, it's obvious that America is the most economically successful country, and has had some marvellous successes in science, but it also seems to be a country determined to tear itself apart over almost anything - race, gender, reproduction, hierarchy, "freedom", guns, ... It's actually rather sad - what could be a Great country is just a big country becoming lesser :(
  - rayiner 4y ago
    Looking at the outside from where? Because the level of conflict in America isn’t unusual for such a heterogenous country. Forget race or immigration. Even the “white” people in America are from very distinct and rather incompatible cultures and religions. My family is from Bangladesh, but I grew up near DC, while my wife’s family settled the Oregon coast on wagon trains. There’s significant cultural conflict between my side of the family and her’s, but at least half of it is east coast American versus west coast American rather than “American” versus “Bangladeshi.” It’s folly trying to use the American federal government to impose uniformity on a country of 330 million people. Imagine what would happen in Europe if Paris tried to impose its values and culture on Poland. It’s not fundamentally any different from what’s happening in the US with New York City trying to do the same thing to Iowa or Georgia.

nix23 4y ago

>it's not easy to find countries with strong religious politics and a modern or rational outlook Maybe Bhutan? But it's a really special situation there (Kingdom etc) but modern for sure not (but is modern really good? Depends probably what's the meaning of it)

_8j50 4y ago

Like many things I think balance is key. Unless the government is theocratic religious organiztions have no place in it. But individuals (elected or not) should fully operate and make decisions in accordance with their openly held beliefs. Whether that belief is conformant or influenced by organized religion is not relevant. What is important is whether or not their beliefs have been made known to those electing or appointing them. A government of the people must reflect the beliefs of the people. What if the people believe in sharia law and they are only a neighborhood in Marseille? That's what rights are for, they are there to protect the minority, the people must agree on rights that apply for everyone that cannot be overriden by popular support. Individual beliefs should not override rights of the people. What you see in many european countries and even in the US is open bigotry. Hatred and hostility to people of faith as a whole. "You can believe things but you can't practice them in public" you might as well make atheism the state religion like communist russia. No religion or lack thereof should be supported by the government, this includes not having a religion. Atheists should be allowed to run for office and practice their lack of religion as should a sharia law supporting muslim but neither shall infringe on the rights of the people. However they may well infringe on many aspects of people's lives that are not protected by law as rights. The west as a whole owes its way of life in some shape or form to religion because before atheism and secularism became mainstream like it is today every aspect of people lives was influenced by religion and in some cases it revolved around religion. Unless the claim is that the only accomplishments of civilization that count are ones made after secularism and prior accomplishments were not a stepping stone to post-secular accomplishments? Or is it that religion causes wars and all kinds of horrible things? I got news for you, people will find excuses to do all manners of evil and cruelty with or without religion. Both world wars and every american war were not caused by religion. Every civilization with or without religion has wars, genocide,etc.... we humans suck. The french themselves even to this day facilitate all manners of cruelty in africa without needing any religion to support their actions. It is a terrible excuse to appear superior to one's ancestors and avoid confronting the mess inherited from them.

gxt 4y ago
Dogmatism is incompatible with civilisation. > The west as a whole owes its way of life in some shape or form to religion You haven't gone far back enough in history to make that claim. Civilisation was destroyed by Christianity, and for a 1000 years, nothing happened, no progress except for a few individuals who dared question religion. > A government of the people must reflect the beliefs of the people. I have heard this my whole life. I have been struggling to understand this folly my whole life, because to me eyes, it is fundamentally a misunderstanding of correlation and causation. Generally ethical peoples focused on bettering themselves produced the democracies that led to this mad sentence. Now decades/century later people look at it at face value and fail to choose to better themselves, they only see their ego and call themselves the best, they say that's all there will ever be. It's false, it's a lie, and unchecked will lead to another dark age. We must choose, I choose to look at myself and see the good without forgetting the bad, I choose to improve upon myself, be inspired by others, sieve cultures, emulate the good, and learn for the terrible so as to never repeat it. Would I to fail to do this, I fear I will never understand existence, and would be a crime against the universe. Claiming to know what it is, is a lie, nobody knows. What we must do is figure it out. No religion will ever achieve that.
- _8j50 4y ago
  > ... and for a 1000 years, nothing happened, no progress except for a few individuals who dared question religion. This is categorically untrue. The people you claim questioned religion merely questioned mainstream religion, galileo and newton were very very religious(as in organized!) and I could name many more. The Arab world and Chinese civilization contributed manu things that were foundational to western developments from mathematics to gunpowder and those people were very religious. I don't care what you believe and that is precisely my point. The madness I see and the source of so many modern problems is that people like you could not be bothered to convince your fellow voters of your beliefs. I guess what they say about becoming what you hate eventually is true. You don't believe people's beliefs should be represented by their govenrment unless that belief is correct according to you. Meet the old boss,same as the new boss? It is your line of thinking that has led to anti-vaxx people, flat earthers and climate change deniers because of the arrogance with which you demand you are right because of science and religion or anything not conforming to your correct view is madness. Your dismiss others and try to find any way to achieve your goals except to convince those who disagree with you because they are after all mad? Because it takes too long and too much effort? Because you don't know how to communicate your views to those you disagree with without insulting them and their beliefs? Not so different from catholics and manifest-destiny american Christians are you now, except they convinced enough people to carry through with their objectives? I am not trying to convince you about the plus side if religion but that the end or how correct you are is irrelevant. Short of civil wars and dictatorships you will just have to convince people and the government will just have to represent the beliefs of its people whatever the end maybe so long as the rights of the minority is respected.

tsol 4y ago

So basically no one is modern to you except secular Europe? You write off 70% of the world so easily.

rayiner 4y ago

The false assumption here is that there is a “broader national project.” The United States was never an Enlightenment experiment like modern France. It wasn’t about unifying a people through rationalism and science. After all, Massachusetts Puritans were one of the country’s key founding groups. More than one state had an established state church at the time of the American revolution. The United States was from its inception a very different project: a pluralistic society where different religious factions—Puritans in Massachusetts and Episcopalians in Maryland—could live alongside each other without going to war. Our “current events” illustrates the folly of subsequent attempts to make America—a place that has myriad distinct cultures even amongst supposedly “white” people—into a French-style unitary secular republic. Your comment about “retrograde” outcomes is pretty odd. America is by far the most religious country in the developed world—Americans pray daily at the same rate as people in Bangladesh (a place where daily prayer is a central aspect of the religion!) America is also the most successful country in the history of the world.

drpixie 4y ago
...the most successful country in the history of the world. Looking from outside, it's obvious that America is the most economically successful country, and has had some marvellous successes in science, but it also seems to be a country determined to tear itself apart over almost anything - race, gender, reproduction, hierarchy, "freedom", guns, ... It's actually rather sad - what could be a Great country is just a big country becoming lesser :(
- rayiner 4y ago
  Looking at the outside from where? Because the level of conflict in America isn’t unusual for such a heterogenous country. Forget race or immigration. Even the “white” people in America are from very distinct and rather incompatible cultures and religions. My family is from Bangladesh, but I grew up near DC, while my wife’s family settled the Oregon coast on wagon trains. There’s significant cultural conflict between my side of the family and her’s, but at least half of it is east coast American versus west coast American rather than “American” versus “Bangladeshi.” It’s folly trying to use the American federal government to impose uniformity on a country of 330 million people. Imagine what would happen in Europe if Paris tried to impose its values and culture on Poland. It’s not fundamentally any different from what’s happening in the US with New York City trying to do the same thing to Iowa or Georgia.