3 ms·

Religion died, but the fervor of the faithful never did.

• autokad 3y ago
  Religion was never a problem. The same people who 'seized control of religion because they believed they knew how to manage other peoples lives better' are now doing it in the new power structure. sort of. They always used the universities. religion also gets a lot of the blame from the vomit coming from universities. Its the same people doing the same shit.
  • marcosdumay 3y ago
    > The same people who 'seized control of religion because they believed they knew how to manage other peoples lives better' are now doing it in the new power structure. Religion was always about managing other people's lives and making sure some of them endure the teaching to propagate the dogma. It's not a new power structure. It has split directly from it, and it's been there for centuries.
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
• felipeerias 3y ago
  A useful concept might be John Rawls‘ "comprehensive doctrine": a belief system that covers a wide range of values and ideas, providing a framework for understanding the world and guiding one’s behaviour. Rawls did not just apply this definition to traditional religions but also to ideologies such as communism. I think it’s not hard to think of modern examples. The point is that a liberal pluralistic society needs to learn to accommodate people with different worldviews. A key part of that is getting people to understand that their own worldview is subjective, and that other worldviews are possible and acceptable.
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • rjbwork 3y ago
    >The point is that a liberal pluralistic society needs to learn to accommodate people with different worldviews. A key part of that is getting people to understand that their own worldview is subjective, and that other worldviews are possible and acceptable. Yes, however that liberal pluralistic society can't abide incompatible hegemonic worldviews, as they will seek to destroy that liberal pluralistic society using the very mechanisms that make it viable - freedom of speech, equality, a belief in freedom, value of diversity, etc. Look at what people like Mike Johnson believe about politics and society. Look at project 2025. These are people who are so absolutely convinced of their worldview and societal ideal (an ideal compatible with a liberal pluralistic society) that they will use and abuse all levers of power available to them to forcibly foist that worldview upon the rest of us.
  • geephroh 3y ago
    The reference to Rawls's work is really spot-on. > The point is that a liberal pluralistic society needs to learn to accommodate people with different worldviews. A key part of that is getting people to understand that their own worldview is subjective, and that other worldviews are possible and acceptable. And, to state the obvious, this is specifically why the "outrage engagement economy" incentive models that drive almost all of our at-scale communications channels (Twitter, TikTok, YouTube, FoxNews) are inherently dangerous to that liberal pluralistic society. For all of the lip service that these players pay to values like, "civic discourse" and "the town square," they only exist by subdividing their users into "affinity groups," and then pushing them content that triggers maximum emotional response and affirmation of group identity. The platforms don't simply reinforce commitment to particular worldviews; over the last few decades, we have seen them create worldviews to increase user engagement and ad revenue.
• TMWNN 3y ago
  "Problematic" is the woke religion's equivalent of "blasphemous".