5 ms·

> It's very very dumb legislation, and I think derives from a very odd facet of belief found in some American Protestant belief systems - that for Jesus to come

> It's very very dumb legislation, and I think derives from a very odd facet of belief found in some American Protestant belief systems - that for Jesus to come back, the State of Israel has to exist. I remember reading Bill Clinton's biography. At some point, he mentioned that a pastor told him something along these lines, and that it was an important realisation for him. (I read that years ago, could be slightly wrong but that was the idea). I found that extremely disturbing that archaic religious beliefs would influence foreign policies. That being said, it's well known that our former French president got advised by an astrologer [1] [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/jun/25/jonhenley.theobserver2 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/jun/25/jonhenley.theo...

rayiner 4y ago
> I found that extremely disturbing that archaic religious beliefs would influence foreign policies Why? As a former atheist, I’ve come to the realization that the alternative—at least at scale—to traditional religion isn’t people being hyper rational engineers. It’s different and less well established unprovable and illogical beliefs. Have you read some of the social “science” stuff that gets published? All the “woo” stuff? People believe that stuff and it gets executed into policy. (The reasons for the atheism being former are unrelated to that observation, my point is just that I get where your initial take is coming from.)
- wahnfrieden 4y ago
- boardwaalk 4y ago
  The belief that more rational beliefs are possible is not exactly debatable, is it? Certainly, the “woo” stuff you referenced is not the only alternative? That people have to believe in some “religion” and that common “religions” at the current point in history are at peak possible rationality… well, there’s no real reason to believe that, is there?
  - imchillyb 4y ago
    Sure if s person is willing to completely ignore reality for pie in the sky…
    - qsort 4y ago
      There are at least three different claims here that I'd like to unpack: 1) "If you really have to pick a belief system to put your faith in, you can do much worse than traditional religion." Now, I'm a lifelong atheist, and atheism is one of the few things I never changed my mind on, but I came to the conclusion that this is probably true: at the very least, traditional religion is a stable belief system that won't destroy your life. 2) "A lot of people who aren't traditionally religious, actually follow some random bullshit creed that's much worse than religion." I agree with this, there is a genuine human need religion fulfills and many might want to "fill the void" with subpar alternatives. 3) "If you are an atheist, then you necessarily fall into case (2)." Which is blatantly false, as the existence of millions of perfectly well-adjusted and functioning atheists shows.
      - rayiner 4y ago
        To be clear, I’m not asserting that (3) is the case. I’m just saying that as a practical matter it’s a small number and a lot of people that abandon traditional religion fall into your (2).
        unmole 4y ago
        Believing religious woo doesn't preclude one from believing non-religious woo. If anything, believing religious woo seems correlated with believing non-religious woo: https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2021/07/27/what-drives-belief-in-conspiracy-theories-a-lack-of-religion-or-too-much https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2021/07/27/what-dri...
        skissane 4y ago
        Evidence that such a correlation exists for “white evangelicals” in the US tells us nothing about whether it exists for religious people in general - including religious Americans from other racial/religious backgrounds, and non-Americans. Your observation might not be true for religion at all, only for a very specific type of it
- yodsanklai 4y ago
  I agree that atheists are irrational and biased too. We can't assume politicians to behave as cold calculators, whether they're atheist or not. However very religious people are dogmatic (almost by definition). As such, they are less likely to review certain positions based on facts.
- JamesBarney 4y ago
  Why do you think theology protects against woo? It seems like atheism might be correlated with false beliefs around social studies, but probably anti-correlated around false beliefs like "trump still the election".
  - rayiner 4y ago
    I’m not really making a political point. But as a longtime democrat I lived through all the “the Supreme Court stole the election” and “Diebold machines” and “Putin altered vote tallies for Trump” stuff including among highly educated atheists and agnostics. Most people are largely ignorant about stuff they don’t study specifically.
  - random314 4y ago
    Theology is the original "woo" stuff, that "protects" us from the so called modern woo stuff like gay marriage.
    - rayiner 4y ago
      It’s unlikely that taboos against homosexuality arise from “theology,” given that they exist across societies with starkly different religious traditions. I suspect it has more to do with the importance of biological reproduction in subsistence agriculture societies. My dad grew up in a village in Bangladesh and observed that if you didn’t have kids you died, not even when you’re old and can’t work, but even earlier because you need them for labor. When he was a kid, 1 out of 4 children died by age 5, so there wasn’t exactly a surplus to go around.
      - random314 4y ago
        You repeatedly pass off very peculiar opinions as "obvious facts" with some quasi anecdata from Bangladesh. I understand the advantage of talking about Bangladesh as there are very few Bangladeshis here to contradict you - but you can use this trick only so many times. However, I will credit you with using the words "I suspect" here. You are welcome to pretend being progressive is believing in "woo stuff" like civil rights, womens suffrage, gay marriage, race blind immigration etc. The fact of the matter is that - you would not be in this country without the "woo stuff" you are ridiculing. The conservative culture you have adopted doesn't welcome race blind immigration. Referring to an earlier discussion when you verbally attacked a legal immigrant for documenting his citizenship process https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31348466 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31348466 >>> As an ethnic Bangladeshi my kids and I have a right of return. I can obtain Bangladeshi citizenship any time I want. >> Why are you treating America as some kind of science experiment? > I try not to! My family was invited here by Americans on certain terms, and nobody has ever really complained. But I think they have every right to complain if they wanted. Just to be clear- your family was not invited here by a majority of Americans. Just a corporation or university on restrictive terms and got approved by the US government, thanks to MLKs efforts. A majority of Americans would not welcome you here. Half the country- liberals would not welcome you here, because you would block all progressive laws except Loving vs Virginia, and perhaps race blind immigration, though you take strongly offence when legal immigrants open their mouth, as in the referenced thread. So perhaps, you would also roll back the various 1960s civil rights acts. Half of the conservatives would not want you here because of your skin color, or as you call it - "culture".
- dctoedt 4y ago
  > As a former atheist Mind if I ask what your path was? I called myself an agnostic starting at about age 12 (and was a doubter from age 5), but eventually worked my way around to concluding that something was going on. Some of my musings on that subject: - https://www.questioningchristian.com/2006/06/metanarratives_.html https://www.questioningchristian.com/2006/06/metanarratives_... - https://www.questioningchristian.com/2005/05/why_i_call_myse.html https://www.questioningchristian.com/2005/05/why_i_call_myse...
  - rayiner 4y ago
    These are interesting reads, thank you. I was a professed atheist until my mid 20s, but I’m not sure I ever fully believed my lack of belief. Then when I had kids the feeling became kind of undeniable. Separately, I had I come to admire Christianity. Coming from a part of the world with generational conflict I think the teaching to live like a lamb turn the other cheek is profound. Secular morality diverges quite a bit on that point. EDIT: There is a lot of stuff in the second one that applies to me. My wife’s faith is very strong. I’m not sure whether I adapted to her beliefs, or as someone raised in an extremely secular setting she made me comfortable allowing myself to believe things that I already felt.
    - selimthegrim 4y ago
      So if your kid turned up one day and said they wanted to convert to Islam, what would be your reaction?
starkd 4y ago
It's not founded on archaic religious belief. Israel is a major ally of the U.S. They are integral part of any foreign policy the US embraces.
- elzbardico 4y ago
  The US is a major ally of Israel. Israel is the ultimate pragmatic nation.
  - panick21_ 4y ago
    Israel is the ultimate pragmatic nation? You mean the religious police state that has illegal nuclear weapons and did its best to provoke an apocalyptic conflict between the US and Iran? The apartheid state that is dominated by far right extremist that are still living by a 19th century colonialist doctrine?
    - elzbardico 4y ago
      I didn't use pragmatics as a compliment.
- panick21_ 4y ago
  Pretty funny to call Israel an major ally of the US. Because most of the problems the US has in that part of the world are because of that alliance in the first place. Not mention Israels extremely damaging influence on US domestic politics. Israel working together with Neocons to push the US into some of the worst foreign policy choices since Vietnam. And that's just one aspect of the problem. The list goes on and on. If Israel is a major ally, then I think the US would be much better of with fewer allies.
johnchristopher 4y ago
> I found that extremely disturbing that archaic religious beliefs would influence foreign policies. Ahem. > In the winter of 2003, when George Bush and Tony Blair were frantically gathering support for their planned invasion, Professor Thomas Römer, an Old Testament expert at the university of Lausanne, was rung up by the Protestant Federation of France. [..] President Jacques Chirac wanted to know what the hell President Bush had been on about in their last conversation. Bush had then said that when he looked at the Middle East, he saw "Gog and Magog at work" and the biblical prophecies unfolding. But who the hell were Gog and Magog? Neither Chirac nor his office had any idea. But they knew Bush was an evangelical Christian, so they asked the French Federation of Protestants, who in turn asked Professor Römer. [..] He explained that Gog and Magog were, to use theological jargon, crazy talk. They appear twice in the Old Testament, once as a name, and once in a truly strange prophecy in the book of Ezekiel https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2009/aug/10/religion-george-bush https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2009/a... > That being said, it's well known that our former French president got advised by an astrologer [1] Former, former, former, former president Mitterand, not president Hollande.
- throwaway09223 4y ago
  This guardian article is demonstrable nonsense. Professor Römer is either ignorant, or is intentionally gaslighting Bush. Gog and Magog are well-known figures mentioned in both the Hebrew Bible and the Quran. Playing dumb because it's not also in the Old Testament is not a good look for someone who's supposedly an expert. This article is a silly hit piece written to fool people who are totally ignorant of religious history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gog_and_Magog https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gog_and_Magog https://www.britannica.com/topic/Yajuj-and-Majuj https://www.britannica.com/topic/Yajuj-and-Majuj
  - johnchristopher 4y ago
    > This guardian article is demonstrable nonsense. Professor Römer is either ignorant, or is intentionally gaslighting Bush. Surely you meant gaslighting Chirac ? (which I disagree with, anyway). > Gog and Magog are well-known figures mentioned in both the Hebrew Bible and the Quran. Playing dumb because it's not also in the Old Testament is not a good look for someone who's supposedly an expert. Good thing he's an old testament expert and not a Hebrew bible or quran one then. You think Bush was referring to the Gog and Magog from the Hebrew bible or from the Quran or from the old testament ? Should have called an Hebrew or an Islam expert instead of an protestand Old Testament expert ? Here's a different report of how things happened: https://wp.unil.ch/allezsavoir/george-bush-et-le-code-ezechiel/ https://wp.unil.ch/allezsavoir/george-bush-et-le-code-ezechi... and that might shed a light on why you think Gog and Magog is not as well known in France as you seem to think they are.

rayiner 4y ago

> I found that extremely disturbing that archaic religious beliefs would influence foreign policies Why? As a former atheist, I’ve come to the realization that the alternative—at least at scale—to traditional religion isn’t people being hyper rational engineers. It’s different and less well established unprovable and illogical beliefs. Have you read some of the social “science” stuff that gets published? All the “woo” stuff? People believe that stuff and it gets executed into policy. (The reasons for the atheism being former are unrelated to that observation, my point is just that I get where your initial take is coming from.)

wahnfrieden 4y ago
boardwaalk 4y ago
The belief that more rational beliefs are possible is not exactly debatable, is it? Certainly, the “woo” stuff you referenced is not the only alternative? That people have to believe in some “religion” and that common “religions” at the current point in history are at peak possible rationality… well, there’s no real reason to believe that, is there?
- imchillyb 4y ago
  Sure if s person is willing to completely ignore reality for pie in the sky…
  - qsort 4y ago
    There are at least three different claims here that I'd like to unpack: 1) "If you really have to pick a belief system to put your faith in, you can do much worse than traditional religion." Now, I'm a lifelong atheist, and atheism is one of the few things I never changed my mind on, but I came to the conclusion that this is probably true: at the very least, traditional religion is a stable belief system that won't destroy your life. 2) "A lot of people who aren't traditionally religious, actually follow some random bullshit creed that's much worse than religion." I agree with this, there is a genuine human need religion fulfills and many might want to "fill the void" with subpar alternatives. 3) "If you are an atheist, then you necessarily fall into case (2)." Which is blatantly false, as the existence of millions of perfectly well-adjusted and functioning atheists shows.
    - rayiner 4y ago
      To be clear, I’m not asserting that (3) is the case. I’m just saying that as a practical matter it’s a small number and a lot of people that abandon traditional religion fall into your (2).
      - unmole 4y ago
        Believing religious woo doesn't preclude one from believing non-religious woo. If anything, believing religious woo seems correlated with believing non-religious woo: https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2021/07/27/what-drives-belief-in-conspiracy-theories-a-lack-of-religion-or-too-much https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2021/07/27/what-dri...
        skissane 4y ago
        Evidence that such a correlation exists for “white evangelicals” in the US tells us nothing about whether it exists for religious people in general - including religious Americans from other racial/religious backgrounds, and non-Americans. Your observation might not be true for religion at all, only for a very specific type of it
yodsanklai 4y ago
I agree that atheists are irrational and biased too. We can't assume politicians to behave as cold calculators, whether they're atheist or not. However very religious people are dogmatic (almost by definition). As such, they are less likely to review certain positions based on facts.
JamesBarney 4y ago
Why do you think theology protects against woo? It seems like atheism might be correlated with false beliefs around social studies, but probably anti-correlated around false beliefs like "trump still the election".
- rayiner 4y ago
  I’m not really making a political point. But as a longtime democrat I lived through all the “the Supreme Court stole the election” and “Diebold machines” and “Putin altered vote tallies for Trump” stuff including among highly educated atheists and agnostics. Most people are largely ignorant about stuff they don’t study specifically.
- random314 4y ago
  Theology is the original "woo" stuff, that "protects" us from the so called modern woo stuff like gay marriage.
  - rayiner 4y ago
    It’s unlikely that taboos against homosexuality arise from “theology,” given that they exist across societies with starkly different religious traditions. I suspect it has more to do with the importance of biological reproduction in subsistence agriculture societies. My dad grew up in a village in Bangladesh and observed that if you didn’t have kids you died, not even when you’re old and can’t work, but even earlier because you need them for labor. When he was a kid, 1 out of 4 children died by age 5, so there wasn’t exactly a surplus to go around.
    - random314 4y ago
      You repeatedly pass off very peculiar opinions as "obvious facts" with some quasi anecdata from Bangladesh. I understand the advantage of talking about Bangladesh as there are very few Bangladeshis here to contradict you - but you can use this trick only so many times. However, I will credit you with using the words "I suspect" here. You are welcome to pretend being progressive is believing in "woo stuff" like civil rights, womens suffrage, gay marriage, race blind immigration etc. The fact of the matter is that - you would not be in this country without the "woo stuff" you are ridiculing. The conservative culture you have adopted doesn't welcome race blind immigration. Referring to an earlier discussion when you verbally attacked a legal immigrant for documenting his citizenship process https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31348466 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31348466 >>> As an ethnic Bangladeshi my kids and I have a right of return. I can obtain Bangladeshi citizenship any time I want. >> Why are you treating America as some kind of science experiment? > I try not to! My family was invited here by Americans on certain terms, and nobody has ever really complained. But I think they have every right to complain if they wanted. Just to be clear- your family was not invited here by a majority of Americans. Just a corporation or university on restrictive terms and got approved by the US government, thanks to MLKs efforts. A majority of Americans would not welcome you here. Half the country- liberals would not welcome you here, because you would block all progressive laws except Loving vs Virginia, and perhaps race blind immigration, though you take strongly offence when legal immigrants open their mouth, as in the referenced thread. So perhaps, you would also roll back the various 1960s civil rights acts. Half of the conservatives would not want you here because of your skin color, or as you call it - "culture".
dctoedt 4y ago
> As a former atheist Mind if I ask what your path was? I called myself an agnostic starting at about age 12 (and was a doubter from age 5), but eventually worked my way around to concluding that something was going on. Some of my musings on that subject: - https://www.questioningchristian.com/2006/06/metanarratives_.html https://www.questioningchristian.com/2006/06/metanarratives_... - https://www.questioningchristian.com/2005/05/why_i_call_myse.html https://www.questioningchristian.com/2005/05/why_i_call_myse...
- rayiner 4y ago
  These are interesting reads, thank you. I was a professed atheist until my mid 20s, but I’m not sure I ever fully believed my lack of belief. Then when I had kids the feeling became kind of undeniable. Separately, I had I come to admire Christianity. Coming from a part of the world with generational conflict I think the teaching to live like a lamb turn the other cheek is profound. Secular morality diverges quite a bit on that point. EDIT: There is a lot of stuff in the second one that applies to me. My wife’s faith is very strong. I’m not sure whether I adapted to her beliefs, or as someone raised in an extremely secular setting she made me comfortable allowing myself to believe things that I already felt.
  - selimthegrim 4y ago
    So if your kid turned up one day and said they wanted to convert to Islam, what would be your reaction?

starkd 4y ago

It's not founded on archaic religious belief. Israel is a major ally of the U.S. They are integral part of any foreign policy the US embraces.

elzbardico 4y ago
The US is a major ally of Israel. Israel is the ultimate pragmatic nation.
- panick21_ 4y ago
  Israel is the ultimate pragmatic nation? You mean the religious police state that has illegal nuclear weapons and did its best to provoke an apocalyptic conflict between the US and Iran? The apartheid state that is dominated by far right extremist that are still living by a 19th century colonialist doctrine?
  - elzbardico 4y ago
    I didn't use pragmatics as a compliment.
panick21_ 4y ago
Pretty funny to call Israel an major ally of the US. Because most of the problems the US has in that part of the world are because of that alliance in the first place. Not mention Israels extremely damaging influence on US domestic politics. Israel working together with Neocons to push the US into some of the worst foreign policy choices since Vietnam. And that's just one aspect of the problem. The list goes on and on. If Israel is a major ally, then I think the US would be much better of with fewer allies.

johnchristopher 4y ago

> I found that extremely disturbing that archaic religious beliefs would influence foreign policies. Ahem. > In the winter of 2003, when George Bush and Tony Blair were frantically gathering support for their planned invasion, Professor Thomas Römer, an Old Testament expert at the university of Lausanne, was rung up by the Protestant Federation of France. [..] President Jacques Chirac wanted to know what the hell President Bush had been on about in their last conversation. Bush had then said that when he looked at the Middle East, he saw "Gog and Magog at work" and the biblical prophecies unfolding. But who the hell were Gog and Magog? Neither Chirac nor his office had any idea. But they knew Bush was an evangelical Christian, so they asked the French Federation of Protestants, who in turn asked Professor Römer. [..] He explained that Gog and Magog were, to use theological jargon, crazy talk. They appear twice in the Old Testament, once as a name, and once in a truly strange prophecy in the book of Ezekiel https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2009/aug/10/religion-george-bush https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2009/a... > That being said, it's well known that our former French president got advised by an astrologer [1] Former, former, former, former president Mitterand, not president Hollande.

throwaway09223 4y ago
This guardian article is demonstrable nonsense. Professor Römer is either ignorant, or is intentionally gaslighting Bush. Gog and Magog are well-known figures mentioned in both the Hebrew Bible and the Quran. Playing dumb because it's not also in the Old Testament is not a good look for someone who's supposedly an expert. This article is a silly hit piece written to fool people who are totally ignorant of religious history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gog_and_Magog https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gog_and_Magog https://www.britannica.com/topic/Yajuj-and-Majuj https://www.britannica.com/topic/Yajuj-and-Majuj
- johnchristopher 4y ago
  > This guardian article is demonstrable nonsense. Professor Römer is either ignorant, or is intentionally gaslighting Bush. Surely you meant gaslighting Chirac ? (which I disagree with, anyway). > Gog and Magog are well-known figures mentioned in both the Hebrew Bible and the Quran. Playing dumb because it's not also in the Old Testament is not a good look for someone who's supposedly an expert. Good thing he's an old testament expert and not a Hebrew bible or quran one then. You think Bush was referring to the Gog and Magog from the Hebrew bible or from the Quran or from the old testament ? Should have called an Hebrew or an Islam expert instead of an protestand Old Testament expert ? Here's a different report of how things happened: https://wp.unil.ch/allezsavoir/george-bush-et-le-code-ezechiel/ https://wp.unil.ch/allezsavoir/george-bush-et-le-code-ezechi... and that might shed a light on why you think Gog and Magog is not as well known in France as you seem to think they are.