2 ms·

> This is the basis of my point about conflating communitarianism for authoritarianism. It's not a conflation, it's a difference in perception. You can assert

by Udo 13y ago

> This is the basis of my point about conflating communitarianism for authoritarianism. It's not a conflation, it's a difference in perception. You can assert that your opinion is the only valid one as long as you want, but if we're going to have a discussion about it I'll have to disagree on that point. Communitarianism may be how they perceive themselves, but if you look at the prevailing structures that image falls apart pretty quickly. In fact, American-branded Christianity displays many of the characteristics of Authoritarianism, since it's also a quasi-political system rooted in many aspects of public and private life. Let me recycle your condescending Wikipedia-pasting maneuver here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism. It's a strict hierarchy that comes straight down from a deity, branching off to layers of people with power derived and intertwined with that religion. Obedience is seen as a mandatory trait, and those Communitarian properties are only exhibited as long as members don't violate one of the many arbitrary tenets and restrictions on behavior. One of the many restrictions is by necessity the censure of science and knowledge. At the same time, I'd be ridiculous to call the US an outright Theocracy, even though it has some similar traits. But the strict and militaristic hierarchy complete with large-scale control of public opinion makes it a better match for a system that has strong authoritarian traits. Such is the limitation of labels. It's often hard to find one most people can agree with. They're of limited use in these cases, other than to approximate a certain meaning. However, that approximation is very brittle when communicating with people who are pissed off and/or disagree strongly about everything to begin with. > In Islamic countries, the prevailing mood is far more authoritarian. That's something we can agree on, as I believe I've said earlier in those comments you like to mock.

rayiner 13y ago
> It's not a conflation, it's a difference in perception. The difference between communitarianism and authoritarianism is not one of perception. It's one of "we decide that this is how we behave" versus "some authority decides how we behave." Whether American Christianity is communitarian or authoritarian may be one of perception, but what perspective do you have as someone who is admittedly unfamiliar with American Christianity? > It's a strict hierarchy that comes straight down from a deity, branching off to layers of people with power derived and intertwined with that religion. Obedience is seen as a mandatory trait, and those Communitarian properties are only exhibited as long as members don't violate one of the many arbitrary tenets and restrictions on behavior. One of the many restrictions is by necessity the censure of science and knowledge. This is not actually how religion functions in the U.S., especially among Protestant Christians, which are the largest religious group. I'm not religious, but my wife is, so I attend services about once a month. The message revolves around finding a personal relationship with God, not blind obedience to "many arbitrary tenants and restrictions on behavior." That's the meat and potatoes of mainstream American Christianity. Indeed, there is an anti-authoritarianism built into Protestant Christianity: it is based on a rejection of the authority of the Catholic Church to dictate the meaning of the religion, and elevates individuals seeking a personal, individual connection with God.
- Udo 13y ago
  > The difference between communitarianism and authoritarianism is not one of perception. I agree. (Sorry for the edit, I misread you there) But to your point. Just because your religion provides you with a "personal relationship with God" (which I believe pretty much every single religion does by the way), doesn't mean you're not living in a restrictive framework of questionable ethics. And just because Luther rejected the Catholic church doesn't mean (especially American) Protestantism isn't a throwback to the agrarian age. However, my basic criticism is much simpler: I criticize the validity of a belief in imaginary magical beings, especially ones that spread fear, ignorance, and suffering as their believers impose this nonsense upon themselves and, more importantly, others.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    Communitarianism is definitely distinct from authoritarianism, for the same reason that regulated capitalism or socialist democracy isn't intrinsically "less free" than anarcho-libertarianism. Many people believe, on both the right and the left, that the imposition of rules on individuals by the community can lead to more actual freedom than a scenario in which individuals act without restrictions. Now, whether American religious communities display more of the characteristics of communitarianism or authoritarianism is a matter of opinion. > But to your point. Just because your religion provides you with a "personal relationship with God" (which I believe pretty much every single religion does by the way), doesn't mean you're not living in a restrictive framework of questionable ethics. And my point is that American Christianity focuses on the person relationship with God, and not an authoritarian framework, while Islam in Islamic countries tends to focus on the authoritarian framework. American pastors by and large do not get in front of their congregations and say "do this and don't do this, otherwise you'll burn in hell." To most American Christians, that's not the function of religion in their lives. But in most Muslim countries, that is the function of religion. They don't eat pork because their Imam says not to. They wear headscarves because their Imam says to. The relationship with God is also important, but the regulatory framework derived from religious text as interpreted by religious authorities is also very important. You're entitled to believe that the ethical framework of American Christianity is questionable, but that doesn't make it authoritarian. And you're welcome to believe that American Protestantism is a conservative throwback, but that doesn't make it authoritarian. Believe it or not, free thinking people can find their own way to conservative ideas, and free communities can impose conservative rules on their members because they feel it will enhance their collective prosperity, not just because some authority figure tells them to. > I criticize the validity of a belief in imaginary magical beings, especially ones that spread fear, ignorance, and suffering as their believers impose this nonsense upon themselves and, more importantly, others. You've moved the goalposts quite a bit, from asserting that American society is essentially authoritarian in the same way as Islamic society, to making a generic criticism of religion. Religion = bad, and America and Saudi Arabia, etc, have lots of religious people, and that's bad. Right? You're ignoring that the function and nature of religion between the two societies is very different.

by Udo 13y ago

rayiner 13y ago

> It's not a conflation, it's a difference in perception. The difference between communitarianism and authoritarianism is not one of perception. It's one of "we decide that this is how we behave" versus "some authority decides how we behave." Whether American Christianity is communitarian or authoritarian may be one of perception, but what perspective do you have as someone who is admittedly unfamiliar with American Christianity? > It's a strict hierarchy that comes straight down from a deity, branching off to layers of people with power derived and intertwined with that religion. Obedience is seen as a mandatory trait, and those Communitarian properties are only exhibited as long as members don't violate one of the many arbitrary tenets and restrictions on behavior. One of the many restrictions is by necessity the censure of science and knowledge. This is not actually how religion functions in the U.S., especially among Protestant Christians, which are the largest religious group. I'm not religious, but my wife is, so I attend services about once a month. The message revolves around finding a personal relationship with God, not blind obedience to "many arbitrary tenants and restrictions on behavior." That's the meat and potatoes of mainstream American Christianity. Indeed, there is an anti-authoritarianism built into Protestant Christianity: it is based on a rejection of the authority of the Catholic Church to dictate the meaning of the religion, and elevates individuals seeking a personal, individual connection with God.

Udo 13y ago
> The difference between communitarianism and authoritarianism is not one of perception. I agree. (Sorry for the edit, I misread you there) But to your point. Just because your religion provides you with a "personal relationship with God" (which I believe pretty much every single religion does by the way), doesn't mean you're not living in a restrictive framework of questionable ethics. And just because Luther rejected the Catholic church doesn't mean (especially American) Protestantism isn't a throwback to the agrarian age. However, my basic criticism is much simpler: I criticize the validity of a belief in imaginary magical beings, especially ones that spread fear, ignorance, and suffering as their believers impose this nonsense upon themselves and, more importantly, others.
- rayiner 13y ago
  Communitarianism is definitely distinct from authoritarianism, for the same reason that regulated capitalism or socialist democracy isn't intrinsically "less free" than anarcho-libertarianism. Many people believe, on both the right and the left, that the imposition of rules on individuals by the community can lead to more actual freedom than a scenario in which individuals act without restrictions. Now, whether American religious communities display more of the characteristics of communitarianism or authoritarianism is a matter of opinion. > But to your point. Just because your religion provides you with a "personal relationship with God" (which I believe pretty much every single religion does by the way), doesn't mean you're not living in a restrictive framework of questionable ethics. And my point is that American Christianity focuses on the person relationship with God, and not an authoritarian framework, while Islam in Islamic countries tends to focus on the authoritarian framework. American pastors by and large do not get in front of their congregations and say "do this and don't do this, otherwise you'll burn in hell." To most American Christians, that's not the function of religion in their lives. But in most Muslim countries, that is the function of religion. They don't eat pork because their Imam says not to. They wear headscarves because their Imam says to. The relationship with God is also important, but the regulatory framework derived from religious text as interpreted by religious authorities is also very important. You're entitled to believe that the ethical framework of American Christianity is questionable, but that doesn't make it authoritarian. And you're welcome to believe that American Protestantism is a conservative throwback, but that doesn't make it authoritarian. Believe it or not, free thinking people can find their own way to conservative ideas, and free communities can impose conservative rules on their members because they feel it will enhance their collective prosperity, not just because some authority figure tells them to. > I criticize the validity of a belief in imaginary magical beings, especially ones that spread fear, ignorance, and suffering as their believers impose this nonsense upon themselves and, more importantly, others. You've moved the goalposts quite a bit, from asserting that American society is essentially authoritarian in the same way as Islamic society, to making a generic criticism of religion. Religion = bad, and America and Saudi Arabia, etc, have lots of religious people, and that's bad. Right? You're ignoring that the function and nature of religion between the two societies is very different.