4 ms·
That implies that “modern” is unequivocally better than anything else.
by jeoqn 4y ago
That implies that “modern” is unequivocally better than anything else.
- bovermyer 4y agoNot sure why people are down-voting this. While theocracy is a clear and present danger, "modern" is too broad a label to apply as a counter to it. The more accurate counter would be policy based on empiricism. This is not predicated on the idea that the progression of time advances all things, but rather a timeless philosophy that has had its peaks and troughs throughout history.
- computerfriend 4y agoIt's because it's not accurate. The above comment was framing the argument, not making the argument. There wasn't an implicit value judgement. Someone else is free to argue that an oppressive 7th century religion is better or worse than modern times within that frame. Or argue (like you have done) that it's an inadequate framing.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- rocknor 4y agoTrue, but in this case it absolutely is.
- timeon 4y agoIn this context?
- gataca 4y agoNot really, it implies that "modern" is better than a 7th century religion
- babypuncher 4y agoOne modern alternative is "no religion", which is better than any religion that enforces this kind of crap. This is the position any modern governing entity should take. I don't have a problem with religion in principle, only when it is used as justification to mistreat others, as is happening here. At that point any spiritual benefits it offers adherents are outweighed by the societal harm it causes. There are good religions like this, they just don't preach about exciting fire and brimstone from the pulpit.
- robertlagrant 4y agoIt's not automatically good. One of the most atheist governments was Soviet Russia, with the attendant horrifying death toll on its population.
- babypuncher 4y agoWhen I say "no religion" I don't mean "state mandated atheism". I also don't think organized faith of any kind would have done anything to solve the problems with the Soviet Union. Especially when they were one despotic atheist state among countless despotic theocracies.
- robertlagrant 4y agoFair enough. Separation of church and state has been progressing over the last thousand years. I surmised the only modern thing you could've been referring to was state atheism. Did you mean something different to both of those things? > Especially when they were one despotic atheist state among countless despotic theocracies. Not countless. They had plenty of democracies around them as well. And even if they hadn't, Communist China and Communist Russia's death tolls on their own populations make every other despot in history added up look like nothing.
- babypuncher 4y agoSeparation of church and state is exactly what I'm talking about. I consider it modern, even though the idea is now pretty old. Throughout most of human history, religion has been a key part of the power structure of most civilizations. In that context, the ideas brought forth and during the Age of Enlightenment are still very "modern". There are also still many countries that have yet to adopt this ideal, and even within many developed democracies there are still forces that wish for us to regress.
- hulitu 4y agoIt's funny that the "death toll" was mainly given by the "western democracies".