Why the Left despises Religion

[Deornwulf]

What on earth are you trying to say here?

History Revisionists would have you believe that the slave trade of Africans was solely a creation of Western Europe, an institution created entirely by caucasians to subjegate negros. This is not the truth. The export of African slaves was merely an adjunct to an existing slave trade in Africa. By many accounts, the Europeans treated their "property" better than the African tribes that originally sold the slaves. (Only partly out of Christian compassion, the treatment was mainly predicated on keeping their investments sound.)

Your ealier allegation that Christians "kidnapped" Africans as slaves and "forced" their religion on them is based on several false premises. The Europeans did very little capturing of slaves on their own, finding it easier to purchase them from existing slave markets.

 

[Deornwulf]

That simply is not true. Census data indicates that only ~10% of the population will describe themselves as atheist or agnostic. And that is inclusive of atheists/agnostics such as myself who happen to be conservative in most of their views that do not relate to religion. Moreover, only a very small fraction of that 10% would actually go so far as to despise religion or God. So, at best, we have 1%-2% who would fit your description. This is hardly representative of "the Left." Indeed, if you think about it, there are very many liberals who are Jewish. And liberal Hollywood is majority Buddhist. And that makes no mention of the plethora of liberals who are Christian. Indeed, when I consider my liberal friends, I all but one follow a theistic religion. Which of course, places a higher authority above them.


Would you care to engage in a philosophic refutation of moral relativism? When I first encountered the concept (a concept which admittedly makes life that much less simple), I certainly tried. My failure to do so has resulted in my accepting the post-modern notions of relativism as largely correct.

So you would hold to the premise that any action can be made moral? I think you are caught in a trap of logical fallacies. While it is true that one could argue that all morals are relative there have to be some universal absolutes to create a standard by which morals can be defined.

I never stated that all Liberals were atheists. I stated that Liberals despise religion, specifically Organized Religion, mainly because it imposes a set of rules and guidelines to which many on the Left refuse to follow because they conflict with selfish personal desires.

BTW - There are many in Hollywood who may claim to be Buddhist but their actions would not make the master laugh. The lives they choose to lead are far from the spiritual path. This may be a broad generalization but I would be willing to bet that some of those in Hollywood are merely Buddhist to be part of the in crowd.

 

[rei_t_ex]

So you would hold to the premise that any action can be made moral? I think you are caught in a trap of logical fallacies. While it is true that one could argue that all morals are relative there have to be some universal absolutes to create a standard by which morals can be defined.

I would hold to the premise that the morality of a particular action is relative to the society in which that action takes place. I would hold there to be nothing wrong with a society (somewhat arbitrarily) establishing a set morals for itself, but my belief is that nonetheless those morals are arbitrary and are liable to change. There have been plenty of examples of changing morals (slavery and treatment of women come easiest to mind) in history. What are the logical fallacies that I am trapped in? Why do there have to be universal absolutes?

I never stated that all Liberals were atheists. I stated that Liberals despise religion, specifically Organized Religion, mainly because it imposes a set of rules and guidelines to which many on the Left refuse to follow because they conflict with selfish personal desires.

One would have to be an atheist in order to even be in a position to hate organised religion. For anyone who is not an atheist subscribes to one form of organised religion or another, and I would deem it highly unlikely that people would despise something that they willingly choose to be.

BTW - There are many in Hollywood who may claim to be Buddhist but their actions would not make the master laugh. The lives they choose to lead are far from the spiritual path. This may be a broad generalization but I would be willing to bet that some of those in Hollywood are merely Buddhist to be part of the in crowd.

I do not think that the question of whether the denizens of Hollywood are good Buddhists is relevant. Yes, they are decadent, but they nonetheless subscribe to an authority higher than them, a fact which contradicts your original point.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I would hold to the premise that the morality of a particular action is relative to the society in which that action takes place. I would hold there to be nothing wrong with a society (somewhat arbitrarily) establishing a set morals for itself, but my belief is that nonetheless those morals are arbitrary and are liable to change. There have been plenty of examples of changing morals (slavery and treatment of women come easiest to mind) in history. What are the logical fallacies that I am trapped in? Why do there have to be universal absolutes?


One would have to be an atheist in order to even be in a position to hate organised religion. For anyone who is not an atheist subscribes to one form of organised religion or another, and I would deem it highly unlikely that people would despise something that they willingly choose to be.


I do not think that the question of whether the denizens of Hollywood are good Buddhists is relevant. Yes, they are decadent, but they nonetheless subscribe to an authority higher than them, a fact which contradicts your original point.

You truly terrify me.

 

[rei_t_ex]

You truly terrify me.

Until you can provide an explanation as to WHY I terrify you, I will take that as a complement.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Until you can provide an explanation as to WHY I terrify you, I will take that as a complement.

You apparently see no moral difference between types of societies in the world. According to you the immoral taliban regime in afghanistan which treated women like crap, and forbad the mere expression of joy is just as acceptable as any other. Let's go enslave blacks again. Hey if we say it's ok it is.

You're terrifying. People like you must not be in a position to lead society in any way. Your thoughts lead to atrocity.

 

[uswarhosre3]

Ah, you speak of the tribal prisoners sold off by the King of the Ivory Coast to the Portuguese Slave Traders. The same country that became quite irrate when the Pope called for an end to the slave trade.

Nicely stated !!
Most people are completely ignorant of slave history.
THey would probably "lose their minds" is you proposed a debate on the "modern slave trade" which is alive and well as we speak in the MOtherland.

 

[no1tovote4]

One would have to be an atheist in order to even be in a position to hate organised religion. For anyone who is not an atheist subscribes to one form of organised religion or another, and I would deem it highly unlikely that people would despise something that they willingly choose to be.

One could be an Agnostic and not like organized religion. My sister is a Christian and believes that organized religion is a terrible thing. I think you are attempting to make an absolute about something that is not an absolute. You would not have to be Atheist in order to believe that organized religion is the bane of society.

I do not think that the question of whether the denizens of Hollywood are good Buddhists is relevant. Yes, they are decadent, but they nonetheless subscribe to an authority higher than them, a fact which contradicts your original point.

Buddha never said you cannot be rich, and in fact the Dhammapada specifically says that if a rich person follows the Way they are still blessed.

However being a Buddhist, the authority I subscribe to is the Way and not to a specific Godhood above all others.

 

[rei_t_ex]

You apparently see no moral difference between types of societies in the world. According to you the immoral taliban regime in afghanistan which treated women like crap, and forbad the mere expression of joy is just as acceptable as any other.

Not at all. As I said, I see nothing wrong with establishing morals and judging others by them. Indeed, assuming only a simple, self-interested principle of treating others the way you want to be treated to encourage similar treatment from them would easily classify the Taliban as immoral. And, indeed, I believe this to be the case. To put it another way, while I remain convinced of the correctness of my morals, I will continue to act on them and attempt to have them enforced/adopted by as many people as possible. However, I am against the assumption that my morals are inviolable and can never be changed. Having no absolute morals is highly different from having NO morals whatsoever.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Raytex. If you consider all societies equal, do you have any notion of human progress? From one state of existence to another more preferable state? Is there any concept of improvement for you? A direction to go in? If every belief system is equal, why do you have a problem with religion? It should be just as valid as any other worldview.

You have a right to your opinion, but you're line of thinking is destructive to humanity. It excuses any notion of evil whatsoever.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Not at all. As I said, I see nothing wrong with establishing morals and judging others by them. Indeed, assuming only a simple, self-interested principle of treating others the way you want to be treated to encourage similar treatment from them would easily classify the Taliban as immoral. And, indeed, I believe this to be the case. To put it another way, while I remain convinced of the correctness of my morals, I will continue to act on them and attempt to have them enforced/adopted by as many people as possible. However, I am against the assumption that my morals are inviolable and can never be changed. Having no absolute morals is highly different from having NO morals whatsoever.

So you do believe in the moral superiority of some systems. You're confused and full of crap. You've already gone against you're own stated beliefs.

 

[rei_t_ex]

One could be an Agnostic and not like organized religion. My sister is a Christian and believes that organized religion is a terrible thing. I think you are attempting to make an absolute about something that is not an absolute. You would not have to be Atheist in order to believe that organized religion is the bane of society.

I addressed the agnosticism in an earlier post. I then lumped it together with atheism for simplicity of notation. As to Christians being able to despise organised religion, this will come down to a matter of semantics regarding the precise definition one has for the concept of organised religion. The way I interpreted Deornwulf to use it, was to effectively equate organised religion with theism, hence his conclusion that the Left despises organised religion due to the Left's aversion to placing a higher authority above them.

 

[rei_t_ex]

So you do believe in the moral superiority of some systems. You're confused and full of crap. You've already gone against you're own stated beliefs.

You seem to be missing the fine distinction between relative moral superiority and absolute moral superiority. Just because we cannot be certain of anything does not mean that we cannot accept anything or privilege one thing over another.

Let me draw an analogy with science. You will be hard-pressed to find a scientist who would believe that the scientific conclusions that we hold true today are not going to be either modified, or completely scrapped in the future. However, you will also be hard-pressed to find a scientist who will not accept the conclusions that we hold true today as (relatively) true. My position on morals is identical.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

You seem to be missing the fine distinction between relative moral superiority and absolute moral superiority. Just because we cannot be certain of anything does not mean that we cannot accept anything or privilege one thing over another.

Right. That's not moral relativism. That's a logically derived morality, as opposed to one dictated by a religion. That's what you're trying to say.

 

[rei_t_ex]

Right. That's not moral relativism. That's a logically derived morality, as opposed to one dictated by a religion. That's what you're trying to say.

The position, at least in philosophic circles, is known as Metaethical Moral Relativism. Perhaps this is not what you viewed moral relativism to be, but it is nonetheless moral relativism.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

The position, at least in philosophic circles, is known as Metaethical Moral Relativism. Perhaps this is not what you viewed moral relativism to be, but it is nonetheless moral relativism.

I would call it logically derived morality. Philosphical circles end up being the jerking kind.

 

[rei_t_ex]

I would call it logically derived morality.

A rose by any other name...

Philosphical circles end up being the jerking kind.

LOL! You are giving those in the field too much credit. They would lack the imagination necessary...

 

[lolita715]

The left does not despise religon. We just think there should be seperation of church and state. Isnt that why we got out of England??

 

[no1tovote4]

The left does not despise religon. We just think there should be seperation of church and state. Isnt that why we got out of England??

No, people left England for many reasons. One of the largest was freedom of religion, not the Separation of Church and state. It was expected by many of the founding fathers that people would use their religion as a moral base for the laws they would create.

There is an assumption that the establishment clause separates Church and State but it does nothing of the sort. It makes it clear that one religion will not be established as the main religion of the US and that no laws can be made to do that, but it does not separate people in government from their religion.

 

[nakedemperor]

History Revisionists would have you believe that the slave trade of Africans was solely a creation of Western Europe, an institution created entirely by caucasians to subjegate negros. This is not the truth. The export of African slaves was merely an adjunct to an existing slave trade in Africa. By many accounts, the Europeans treated their "property" better than the African tribes that originally sold the slaves. (Only partly out of Christian compassion, the treatment was mainly predicated on keeping their investments sound.)

Your ealier allegation that Christians "kidnapped" Africans as slaves and "forced" their religion on them is based on several false premises. The Europeans did very little capturing of slaves on their own, finding it easier to purchase them from existing slave markets.

So if someone kidnapped you and then sold you, those who sold you wouldn't be complicit in kidnapping?

Europeans treated their slaves 'better'; the slave trade to America was an adjunct of an existing trade; these things do not at all alter the viability of the statement "blacks were kidnapped" (removed the agency of the kidnapping to appease you stringent appeal to hisoricity) and "forced to practice Christianity".