"Primitive" Religious/Anti-Religious Hoards and Their Impact on Governance

[JHAQ]

The Bush Presidency represents what happens when primitive religiosity is confounded with policy making . Tragic results .

[Pangloss]

The Bush Presidency represents what happens when primitive religiosity is confounded with policy making . Tragic results .

 

What happens when primitive anti-religiosity is confounded with policy making? Just curious.

Edited April 25, 2009 by Pangloss
removed unrelated aside in response to another thread

[Mr Skeptic]

What happens when primitive anti-religiosity is confounded with policy making? Just curious.

 

Well, there were a few anti-religious countries, feel free to look at them.

[iNow]

What happens when primitive anti-religiosity is confounded with policy making?

 

Well, there were a few anti-religious countries, feel free to look at them.

 

Pangloss - You should check out the book by Phil Zuckerman called "Society without God: What the least religious nations can tell us about contentment.

 

 

From the NYTimes:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/28/us/28beliefs.html?_r=2&ref=todayspaper

Phil Zuckerman spent 14 months in Scandinavia, talking to hundreds of Danes and Swedes about religion. It wasn’t easy.

 

Anyone who has paid attention knows that Denmark and Sweden are among the least religious nations in the world. Polls asking about belief in God, the importance of religion in people’s lives, belief in life after death or church attendance consistently bear this out.

 

It is also well known that in various rankings of nations by life expectancy, child welfare, literacy, schooling, economic equality, standard of living and competitiveness, Denmark and Sweden stand in the first tier.

 

Well documented though they may be, these two sets of facts run up against the assumption of many Americans that a society where religion is minimal would be, in Mr. Zuckerman’s words, “rampant with immorality, full of evil and teeming with depravity.”

 

 

 

Also, here's a useful article discussing this research in the context of Prop 8:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/phil-zuckerman/the-religious-support-beh_b_145180.html

Proposition 8 passed because of religious folk. There is no question about it. Church-going Black Americans, tithe-paying Mormons, mass-attending Latinos, and Evangelical whites all joined forces in "protecting marriage." The underlying reason religious people voted to revoke from gays and lesbians the legal right to marry is doggedly theological: God doesn't like it. And when a society or culture does things that God doesn't like, that society or culture will suffer. This is a central tenet of every religion, and has been ever since the first shaman first claimed to be able to discern the will of the Almighty by examining the patterns in a bowl full of crushed berries.

 

And it simply isn't true. If God punishes societies that violate his commandments and rewards those that do, this just isn't apparent by looking at the state of the world today.

The sociological fact is that the most irreligious nations right now are among the most successful, humane, moral, and free, while the most religious nations tend to be among the most destitute, chaotic, crime-ridden, and undemocratic.

A similar pattern also holds true within the United States: those states and counties that boast the greatest numbers of strong believers and regular church attenders tend to have higher poverty rates, child abuse rates, violent crime rates, and lower educational attainment rates than those states and counties characterized by more secular populations.

 

 

 

Here's an interview with the author about his book (about 17 minutes total for the two parts):

 

PART 1

cn1il00qIzI

PART 2

_eEojwlG4cU

[Pangloss]

The above two posts do not answer the question I asked, appearing instead to defend moderate religious reduction. Is it your contention that there's no such thing as anti-religious extremism?

[iNow]

No. What's your next question, then? Perhaps you can better define your terms... "Primitive anti-religiosity." My interpretation involved "rationality" and "reason grounded in evidence," but it would seem that's not what you meant.

[Pangloss]

Really? Your answer is "no" -- there's no such thing as anti-religious extremism? [Edit: I realized after replies below that I mis-read iNow here -- really sorry about this.]

 

I'm sure you're not suggesting violence or any sort of illegal activity against religious people, but I note that your "no" would include the removal of all religion from society, including through legal means. It implies that you would support, for example, a constitutional amendment to ban the practice of organized religion in our society (legally overriding the first amendment). You don't consider this to be extreme?

 

Assuming these assumptions are correct, again based on your blanket "no", then I believe my question has been answered. I submit in response that anti-religious behavior can have the same adverse effect on society that religious behavior can have. And, getting back to the subject at hand, that such people can be just as frustrated when society tells them "no, go away, you're just as bad as the evangelicals". Thus producing the same "tragic results" that JHAQ fears, just from a different set of people.

 

Put another way, one form of ideological partisanship is not superior to another form.

 

But I thought your examples were great -- as examples of reduction in the impact of religion on governance. The societies mentioned therein don't eliminate religion, they simply contain its impact on governance. This strikes me as a good idea, and it does not mean that moral standards learned through religious observance cannot be applied to good government.

 

Contrast these for example with societies that ruthlessly eliminate religious observation (something your "no" would support, if not in the specific methods). Those societies are generally seen as FAR from "content" (genocide, soviet-decreed atheism, etc). But as I pointed out above, these are extremes. Certainly Denmark and Sweden allow religion to exist. They simply prefer to have less impact from religion on government than we seem to tolerate. THIS I agree with.

Edited April 25, 2009 by Pangloss

[Mr Skeptic]

Really? Your answer is "no" -- there's no such thing as anti-religious extremism?

 

Someone needs to get iNow a mirror. I guess its always hardest to find fault with yourself.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Pangloss - You should check out the book by Phil Zuckerman called "Society without God: What the least religious nations can tell us about contentment.

 

I think that those societies would be better described as "less religious", not "anti-religious" (as it in fact says in the title).

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism

State atheism

is the official rejection of religion in all forms by a government in favor of atheism. As a strict rule,

only Marxist governments

have ever sought to promote atheism as a public norm, and as a rule in accordance with the doctrine of dialectical materialism.[1] State atheism has been implemented in communist countries, such as the former Soviet Union,[2] China, Communist Albania, Communist Afghanistan, North Korea and Communist Mongolia under communist rule also promoted state atheism and attempted to suppress religion.[3][4] State atheism in these countries may include active opposition to religion, and persecution of religious institutions, leaders and believers. The Soviet Union had a long history of state atheism,[5] in which social success largely required individuals to proclaim atheism and stay away from churches; this attitude was especially militant under Stalin.[6][7][8] The Soviet Union attempted to impose atheism over wide areas of its influence, including places like central Asia.[9] The Socialist People's Republic of Albania under Enver Hoxha went so far as to officially ban the practice of every religion.

 

That is what anti-religious countries look like.

Edited April 25, 2009 by Mr Skeptic
Consecutive posts merged.

[Pangloss]

Someone needs to get iNow a mirror. I guess its always hardest to find fault with yourself.

 

Be nice, please. He has a right to his opinion too. And I think those videos were (are) a valuable contribution.

[bascule]

Really? Your answer is "no" -- there's no such thing as anti-religious extremism?

 

I guess it depends on how you define "extremism." If you try to define it in the same way that religious extremism is defined, then no. There are religious extremists who are willing to strap bombs to themselves or fly planes into buildings on suicide missions for religion. No anti-religious "extremist" is willing to do that.

 

I'm not sure you're going to do much worse than someone like Richard Dawkins, and the totality of his "extremism" is to record television programs about why religion sucks.

[iNow]

Really? Your answer is "no" -- there's no such thing as anti-religious extremism?

What, am I speaking Swahili, or something? You asked, "Is it your contention that there's no such thing as anti-religious extremism? "

 

I responded, "No." That is not my contention, which makes the rest of your post, and Mr Skeptics ridiculousness, all based on false perceptions on your parts and hence not worthy of further comment (except to say that the genocides and soviet massacres you referenced were not based on atheism, but nationalism and patriotic fervor... atheism itself is neither a philosophy nor a worldview, but instead a lack of theism, which itself provides little, if any, descriptive knowledge of mindsets of the person/people/culture to whom said label is applied).

 

 

Now... How about you go ahead and respond to my request for you to define your terms so we don't repeat this silliness yet again.

Edited April 25, 2009 by iNow

[Pangloss]

I apologize, iNow -- I obviously mistakenly read the opposite in your reply.

 

In answer to your question, my contention is that zealotry and evangelism are not limited to religious endeavors. People who believe passionately in something, whether it's god or that we're all moments from dying due to global warming, are equally dangerous when unchecked by the reality of scientific inquiry and rational decision-making.

 

This, again, was in response to JHAQ's implication that it was the religious nature of the Bush administration's actions that made them dangerous. My contention (and point) is that it isn't the fact that they were religious that made them dangerous.

[The Bear's Key]

What happens when primitive anti-religiosity is confounded with policy making?

Same as the OP.

 

Good = Separation of religion from government.

Bad = Government goes beyond that, attacking religions in general.

 

You asked, "Is it your contention that there's no such thing as anti-religious extremism? "

 

I responded, "No." ...atheism itself is neither a philosophy nor a worldview....

Atheism is definitely not what Pangloss said (or meant, likely). I doubt anyone can provide evidence that Sweden and Denmark have laws that specifically keep religions out at the nations' borders.

 

I'm happy for their low-religion numbers (makes a visit there enticing), but I doubt it came about from keeping guard at the borders and prosecuting those who dare believe.

[Pangloss]

I guess it depends on how you define "extremism." If you try to define it in the same way that religious extremism is defined, then no. There are religious extremists who are willing to strap bombs to themselves or fly planes into buildings on suicide missions for religion. No anti-religious "extremist" is willing to do that.

 

I'm not sure you're going to do much worse than someone like Richard Dawkins, and the totality of his "extremism" is to record television programs about why religion sucks.

 

No, but many animal rights and environmental activists will apparently commit violent, terrorist acts without an ounce of religious belief motivating their actions. So clearly religious ferver is not a prerequisite for extremism.

[iNow]

I apologize, iNow -- I obviously mistakenly read the opposite in your reply.

It happens.

 

 

My contention (and point) is that it isn't the fact that they were religious that made them dangerous.

Perhaps not, but their religion certainly played a huge role in the furtherance of their dangerous agenda and it allowed that agenda to blast forward with the relatively uncritical support of fellow believers.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

So clearly religious ferver is not a prerequisite for extremism.

 

But nobody said it was. You're the only one suggesting this, and you're reading far more into a post than is warranted. This whole diatribe you're on is based off of this relatively innocuous comment:

 

 

The Bush Presidency represents what happens when primitive religiosity is confounded with policy making . Tragic results .

 

 

How you have taken that rhetorical ball and run with it so far is somewhat troubling.

Edited April 25, 2009 by iNow
Consecutive posts merged.

[Pangloss]

Oh, I think it's clear that the first ideological opinion statement in this thread resides in the opening post.

[ParanoiA]

The above two posts do not answer the question I asked, appearing instead to defend moderate religious reduction. Is it your contention that there's no such thing as anti-religious extremism?

 

Yes there is. A big clue is how religion is attacked yet all other forms of unsubstantiated belief systems are not. Those who are so averted to religion, tend to focus only on religion, proving a personal bias that excludes all other forms of irrational deductive reasoning.

 

This further indicates, to me, that's it's not about promoting rational thought and reasoning, rather it's about religion being a thorn in their side - prejudice.

 

Otherwise, they would be consistent and expand beyond the short sighted specious indictment of one brand of unsubstantiated belief. The label should be something about irradicating such belief systems; not just religion and god.

 

There's nothing healthy about a psychic draining your bank account so you can talk to your dead relative, or believing that ghosts have unfinished business on earth.

[Sisyphus]

Yes there is. A big clue is how religion is attacked yet all other forms of unsubstantiated belief systems are not. Those who are so averted to religion, tend to focus only on religion, proving a personal bias that excludes all other forms of irrational deductive reasoning.

 

This further indicates, to me, that's it's not about promoting rational thought and reasoning, rather it's about religion being a thorn in their side - prejudice.

 

Otherwise, they would be consistent and expand beyond the short sighted specious indictment of one brand of unsubstantiated belief. The label should be something about irradicating such belief systems; not just religion and god.

 

There's nothing healthy about a psychic draining your bank account so you can talk to your dead relative, or believing that ghosts have unfinished business on earth.

 

I don't know where you're getting that. It seems to me that all the big "anti-religion" spokespeople are also anti new age witch doctor and "The Secret" and whatnot.

[ParanoiA]

The term "anti-religion" creates the margin right out of the gate. That's a deliberate focus on one brand of irrational thought. Those that bash religion repeatedly use the term 'religion' as they assail it. That's where I'm getting that. They are only focusing on religion.

 

If they were assailing religion predicated on challenging unsubstantiated belief systems in general, then I would expect that terminology to make an appearance. When someone posts about psychic phenomena, I would expect the same assault we see from posts about god. It doesn't earn the same level of disgust - not even close. It should.

[Sisyphus]

Right, but the term "anti-religion" comes from religious people. And when Richard Dawkins made The Enemies of Reason about psychic phenomena, ghosts, superstititions, etc., he was accused of really making a thinly veiled attack on religion. So if religion dominates the debate, then perhaps that's because the religious are the ones with the power to make it about them. There are no nations that consult "psychics" on policy (not since Reagan, anyway), but there are several living under Islamic law, evangelicals are still a key factor in American politics, etc.

[The Bear's Key]

No, but many animal rights and environmental activists will apparently commit violent, terrorist acts without an ounce of religious belief motivating their actions. So clearly religious ferver is not a prerequisite for extremism.

If religions and extreme activism both were corporations, imagine the natural advantage religion has in competion....

 

• Worldwide entrenchment/longevity (historical roots)
  
• Missionaries preaching in the Third World
  
• A colossal enticement in promising the "Afterlife" (or if you don't listen...an eternity in Hell)
  
• A network of very widely scattered backwoods towns -- all nonetheless within quick and easy reach by them using a handy strategy....
  
  • You instruct just one top church figure, who relays it to all those scattered backwoods churches, who finally preaches onto a massive, collective flock to "vote your values" (which are suspiciously like the values preached by candidates running for office) -- and not even internet has that kind of effective reach into the Heartland and/or deeply rural areas.
    

 

When someone posts about psychic phenomena, I would expect the same assault we see from posts about god. It doesn't earn the same level of disgust - not even close. It should.

 

So if religion dominates the debate, then perhaps that's because the religious are the ones with the power to make it about them.

Sisyphus hit the nail on its poor head so accurately it shattered.

Edited April 25, 2009 by The Bear's Key
clarify

[iNow]

I also have problems with the suggestion that I'm okay with other mumbo jumbo and only speak openly against religion, that I'm applying my standards of reason, rationality, and evidence in some sort of biased manner. Above posters are correct that it's religions power and entrenchment which make it the frequent target of attack, so the fact that you see these comments about religion more often does not lead to the conclusion that such attacks occur on the religious alone.

 

However, it's important that you know, ParanoiA, I am an equal opportunity basher of ridiculous nonsense, and I think I've made that abundantly clear with my contributions to threads about ghosts, homeopathy, perpetual motion machines, and other human stupidities.

[ParanoiA]

Oh, I agree with a lot of that actually. It's not like one side is good, the other is bad. And I'm glad you brought Dawkins up, because he's an example of what I consider the right style and attitude. Like you said, he's an advocate for reason. He will assail religion, thoughtfully, patiently and convincingly (love his arguments) but it's always within the context of irrational or unsubstantiated belief systems. I watched some specials from him on psychics and other silly pseudo phenomena as well - he's quite consistent.

 

But I really think he's the minority here. I think most revel in his debates on religion, and just kind of nod along on the other stuff. True, if you ask them, you will find they also have no love for other forms of irrational thought - but they don't earn the same impassioned disdain nor focus on irradication.

 

I'm not talking about the religous "making it about them". I'm talking about how I can bring up superstition and get a few laughs, then a few minutes later bring up god and get a face full of objection and ridicule. I'm talking about my side, my associates, my people.

 

Again, my statement is that those that are the most outspoken in assailing religion, tend to focus solely on religion. And that, to answer Pangloss's question which started this exchange, is anti-religious extremism - or at least, prejudice. My personal experience could betray me here I suppose, but I just haven't run into any ranting and raving critics of superstition and ghost hunting as opposed to the residual god bashing I get almost daily.

[iNow]

My personal experience could betray me here I suppose...

Stick with that (but, I will just say that water dowsing and ghost hunting doesn't generally come in the cult-like fashion of religion, nor do those belief systems tend to inform peoples sociopolitical behaviors and mindsets).

[ParanoiA]

Sisyphus hit the nail on its poor head so accurately it shattered.

 

The quote you used to reply to my quote doesn't even address a single thing in my quote. Not sure what the point was.

 

I also have problems with the suggestion that I'm okay with other mumbo jumbo and only speak openly against religion, that I'm applying my standards of reason, rationality, and evidenced in some sort of biased manner.

 

I didn't say that, exactly. I'm saying your emotive bias creates the prejudice. Do you launch into some rant and post Youtube videos and exerpts from articles - all in response to someone's inquirey on the dangers of black cats and ladders? Seriously, I really don't know.

 

Of course, I also understand the consequences are different. The cost of religion is arguably higher. But it still qualifies for the question posed by Pangloss on potential anti-religious extremism.

 

However, it's important that you know, ParanoiA, I am an equal opportunity basher of ridiculous nonsense, and I think I'm made that abundantly clear in threads about ghosts, homeopathy, and perpetual motion machines.

 

We've talked enough that I know your take on this. We've also talked enough that we both know your aversion to religion, specifically. An aversion I thought you were rather proud of. If you're saying I've interpreted you wrong, please correct me.