People misunderstanding what you are saying

Post Reply New Topic

think that humans are perfectly capable of creating prohibition against murder without the need of Christianity or any other religion. After all, if God really doesn't exist, then all those religious prohibitions against murder, stealing, and lying were actually created by these men themselves, all on their own. That proves we're capable of doing it for ourselves. Sure, religion and God may make the process more effective for many, but we certainly don't need it.

Assuming you would consider yourself left of center, I would encourage you to famliarize yourself with Antonio Gramsci's Theory of Cultural Hegemony, particularly its premise, which states that the elite class will always structure the culture to their benefit, and no one else's. If we assume that morality is a cultural creation, then the elites will structure morality to fits their needs, with murder, or anything else, being permissible so long as it benefits them.

This is exactly what has happened with Political Correctness. PC was actually the dream of J.S. Mill, who saw a liberal "religion of humanity" as a replacement for evil Christianity. And there is no doubt that Mill had the best of intentions. But let me ask you how PC benefits you, as opposed to the elite class?

PC exists because not only do average people have a need for the sacred and sublime, but it confers legitimacy upon the elites. This is why in pre-modern times, kings and emperors were crowned by a bishop or pope. And this is why politics have become sacralized today--to confer legitimacy on the rule of the elites. The difference between political sacralization and religious sacralization is that the Bible can't be changed to benefit the selfish aspirations of the elites whereas political religions can--and are. The Bible says what it says whereas PC changes constantly.

If you're interested in a possible atheistic morality, I would recommend the following lecture by Sam Harris at the TED convention. I found it an incredibly intriguing piece that helps set the table for a moral system that is not reliant on an imaginary higher law.

I'm only interested in ideas that work, and the only way we know if an idea works is if it has a time-tested track record. The track record of secular rule is abominable at best. In fact, the reason I am an old-school conservative is because conservatism relies on tradition, which is nothing more than the accumulated wisdom of the ages--or ideas with a proven track record.

Personally, I oppose political correctness for the exact same reason I oppose religion; it makes certain ideas sacred, protecting them from any sort of honest critique. I also do not think that political sacralization and religious sacralization are, in practice, all that different. Like I mentioned before, the Bible is an incredibly complex book, and can be used to justify and support nearly any position imaginable. The text itself may not change, but our interpretation, and which parts we deem important, do. The Bible, or any other religious text for that matter, are just as reliable, or, if you'd prefer, unreliable as anything else. Cultural elites certainly do structure morality to serve their own interests, and religion is arguably one of their greatest tools. Prosperity theology and the Just World Hypothesis didn't come from nowhere, after all.

As for the track record of secular societies, I think your focus is too narrow. Sure, the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were secularist states in the sense that they had an a-religious component. However, they simply replaced religious dogmatism with the unquestionable ideals of their political parties. I like to cite present day North Korea as an example. Yes, they're an atheistic state, but they also treat their royal ruling family as gods themselves. That's certainly not what I really envision when I think of a secular society.

For a better example of a secular society, one would be better to look to the United States, and the countries of Western Europe. Sure, religion does play a powerful role in this areas, but their legal systems are based on secular values, a radically progressive idea at the time of their founding. This is, in part, why I find the idea of political conservatism, and those who follow it, somewhat disingenuous. Conservatives are more than happy to take advantage of the progress created, in large part, by the liberals of the past, progress that would have been fiercely opposed by their ancestors. That's why I laugh when I see conservative seniors so ferociously defend their medicare, a program their grandparents would have found appalling. For that reason alone, I always try to keep my mind open to change; to not do so seems like a disservice to our predecessors who worked and fought so hard to give us rights like freedom of speech, universal suffrage, (theoretically) legal protection for all.

Personally, I oppose political correctness for the exact same reason I oppose religion; it makes certain ideas sacred, protecting them from any sort of honest critique. I also do not think that political sacralization and religious sacralization are, in practice, all that different. Like I mentioned before, the Bible is an incredibly complex book, and can be used to justify and support nearly any position imaginable. The text itself may not change, but our interpretation, and which parts we deem important, do. The Bible, or any other religious text for that matter, are just as reliable, or, if you'd prefer, unreliable as anything else. Cultural elites certainly do structure morality to serve their own interests, and religion is arguably one of their greatest tools. Prosperity theology and the Just World Hypothesis didn't come from nowhere, after all.

The communists in particular killed untold millions of innocent people trying to purge the religious impulse, and they got nowhere. I'm not sure how you think you can do any better. The tragedy of the entire leftist project is that it must assume either that human nature is infinitely malleable or nonexistent.

Sorry, the Bible, along with both Judaism and Christianity, are quite clear on murder and such. Have you never seen the Ten Commandments? Of course there are scoundrels who try to use Christianity for their own ends--with homosexuality being the current example. But the text that forbids homosexuality, or murder, still remains for all to see. With political religions, they can be changed at will.

So-called prosperity theology is another good example. A careful reading of the Bible will indicate that it has nothing nice to say about money or the rich. Can you really imagine the rich elites developing a political religion that says as much?

For a better example of a secular society, one would be better to look to the United States, and the countries of Western Europe. Sure, religion does play a powerful role in this areas, but their legal systems are based on what were considered radically progressive at the time of their founding. This is, in part, why I find the idea of political conservatism, and those who follow it, somewhat disingenuous. Conservatives are more than happy to take advantage of the progress in large part created by the liberals of the past, progress that would have been fiercely opposed by their ancestors. That's why I laugh when I see conservative seniors so ferociously defend their medicare, a program their grandparents would have found appalling. For that reason alone, I always try to keep my mind open to change; to not do so seems like a disservice to our predecessors who worked and fought so hard to give us rights like freedom of speech, universal suffrage, (theoretically) legal protection for all.

Actually, Europe was originally known as Christendom. The US was founded upon both liberal and Anglo-Protestant conservatism--what Emerson called double consciousness. Are you aware that when this country was founded, every state excepting Rhode Island and the Carlinas had an established, official state church? That is hardly secularism. Hard core secularism didn't begin to take hold until the cultural revolution of the 1960's, and is still being hotly contested.

Nor would I call either Europe of the US as secular success stories. In both places, the rich get ever richer, everybody else gets poorer, and young people are in a terribly unenviable position. It is also the case that the US is coming apart, and based in no small part on secularism. Just look at the current government shut-down as one small example. In Europe, every single country has a surging nationalist party, some of which are more than a bit sobering. This is all because of the narcissism bred by secular liberalism--i.e., I've got mine, and to hell with everybody else.