Not-so-strange bed fellows?

Two hot topics for the price of one

Moderator: Moderators

nobspeople
Prodigy
Posts: 3191
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
Has thanked: 1510 times
Been thanked: 817 times

Not-so-strange bed fellows?

Post #1

Post by nobspeople »

Religion these days is, much of the time, a different form of politics:
leaders are elected
churches tell their members how to vote
religion influences society, many times, through legalities
more popular religions have money, using it to promote their own agendas
religions control the lives of people

And on and on.

Why do so many believers seem to get upset when their religion is compared to politics? They are so similar it's hard to tell them apart sometimes.
Have a great, potentially godless, day!

User avatar
Purple Knight
Guru
Posts: 2112
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 668 times
Been thanked: 407 times

Re: Not-so-strange bed fellows?

Post #2

Post by Purple Knight »

Religion and politics are the same because each is about morality. What is the only acceptable reason to make a law? That the thing you're criminalising is immoral.

If you're a laissez-faire capitalist who thinks big business should be able to keep 100% of their profits because they earned them, you think that's moral, and that it's immoral to take those profits away.

If you're on the other end of the spectrum, you might think sharing is moral and not sharing is immoral so you want policy to be that people are forced to share.

Both of these options are absolutely horrible for society and have terrible results that the rest of us will be forced to sigh at and say, well, that's what's right. Can't really argue. We'll be looking at either a big business tycoon using his money to oppress others, or at a parasite doing no work as she pops out her 429th kid, and we'll have to say, well, that hurts me, but that's his property, it's right for him to do as he likes, or well, that hurts me to have to support her, but that's her fair share, and her kids' fair share; they can do as they like.

Politics is about enforcing morality. Same as religion. They're exactly the same.

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 510
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 94 times
Been thanked: 323 times

Re: Not-so-strange bed fellows?

Post #3

Post by The Barbarian »

Purple Knight wrote: Fri Feb 19, 2021 1:14 pm Religion and politics are the same because each is about morality. What is the only acceptable reason to make a law? That the thing you're criminalising is immoral.
No. The function of law is not to make us good, or even to force us to be good. It is to keep people from harming others.
If you're a laissez-faire capitalist who thinks big business should be able to keep 100% of their profits because they earned them, you think that's moral, and that it's immoral to take those profits away.
Laissez-faire capitalism does not deny any taxation whatever; it merely deplores taxes to the extent that it involves government in the economy. Most advocates of laissez-faire in the US, like Herbert Hoover, have been in favor of lower taxes, but not zero taxes.
If you're on the other end of the spectrum, you might think sharing is moral and not sharing is immoral so you want policy to be that people are forced to share.
Politics is about enforcing morality.
In some ideologies. Not in anything remotely libertarian.
Same as religion.
Some state religions, yes. But not Christianity.

User avatar
Purple Knight
Guru
Posts: 2112
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 668 times
Been thanked: 407 times

Re: Not-so-strange bed fellows?

Post #4

Post by Purple Knight »

The Barbarian wrote: Sun Apr 04, 2021 12:06 pmNo. The function of law is not to make us good, or even to force us to be good. It is to keep people from harming others.
Some people would define that as good. Most sane people might, actually. I can't think of an instance of generally accepted evil that wasn't connected somehow to hurting others.
The Barbarian wrote: Sun Apr 04, 2021 12:06 pmLaissez-faire capitalism does not deny any taxation whatever; it merely deplores taxes to the extent that it involves government in the economy. Most advocates of laissez-faire in the US, like Herbert Hoover, have been in favor of lower taxes, but not zero taxes.
Talk to a libertarian.

https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/ ... tion-theft
The Barbarian wrote: Sun Apr 04, 2021 12:06 pmIn some ideologies. Not in anything remotely libertarian.
You don't think?

https://libertarianism.fandom.com/wiki/ ... _principle
The non-aggression principle (NAP) is an ethical and moral principle that aims to avoid conflict between individuals by prohibiting crimes like theft and murder. The crimes prohibited by the NAP are behaviors that are malum in se as opposed to behaviors that are prohibited due to laws, social norms, or moral systems.

Malum in Se, by the way, means inherently evil.

Libertarians think theft is inherently evil, so it doesn't matter if it helps a thousand, they oppose theft.

Why have a law against murder if murder is just fine?

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 510
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 94 times
Been thanked: 323 times

Re: Not-so-strange bed fellows?

Post #5

Post by The Barbarian »

No. The function of law is not to make us good, or even to force us to be good. It is to keep people from harming others.
Purple Knight wrote: Sun Apr 04, 2021 11:06 pm Some people would define that as good.
Let's see... suppose a man abducts and murders someone. The police know he's the one, and plant a listening device in the conference room with his lawyer to get evidence they need to confirm his guilt. When this fact is made known at trial, the judge (as the law requires) throws out the evidence and sets him free. Was that good? Perhaps "good" is the issue. Morally, it's a travesty. But unless such laws are enforced, it encourages tyranny and police misconduct.
Most sane people might, actually. I can't think of an instance of generally accepted evil that wasn't connected somehow to hurting others.
Used to be, the law punished blasphemy. It remains a generally accepted evil. But it harms no one but the person who blasphemes. Why shouldn't blasphemy be punishable? Because the state has no overriding public purpose to do so.
The Barbarian wrote: Sun Apr 04, 2021 12:06 pmLaissez-faire capitalism does not deny any taxation whatever; it merely deplores taxes to the extent that it involves government in the economy. Most advocates of laissez-faire in the US, like Herbert Hoover, have been in favor of lower taxes, but not zero taxes.
Talk to a libertarian.
https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/ ... tion-theft

If you talk to a Marxist, he'll tell you that in a communist state, there will be no coercive laws at all.

However, I notice libertarians and Marxists behave differently in the real world. What political theory says and what practice entails turns out to be two different things.
Politics is about enforcing morality.
In some ideologies. Not in anything remotely libertarian.
You don't think?

https://libertarianism.fandom.com/wiki/ ... _principle
The non-aggression principle (NAP) is an ethical and moral principle that aims to avoid conflict between individuals by prohibiting crimes like theft and murder. The crimes prohibited by the NAP are behaviors that are malum in se as opposed to behaviors that are prohibited due to laws, social norms, or moral systems.

Malum in Se, by the way, means inherently evil.
It has an interesting history in Anglo-Saxon legal evolution, not quite what it has been interpreted to be, today:

What Are Mala In Se Crimes?
Mala in se, which is the plural of malum in se, are criminal acts that are wrong because they violate the moral, public, or natural principles of a society. In the traditional British criminal justice system that the American justice system is based on, crimes that offended society were punished by death or serious harm. Today, mala in se crimes are not traditionally punishable by death, but still face serious sentences.

https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/ ... rimes.html

Murder, Rape, Homosexual acts, theft, blasphemy, and so on, were considered Mala in se Or hearme ricieu hamsocna in OE. Anglo-Saxon has a literalist bent, so that evil is rooted in "harm."
Libertarians think theft is inherently evil, so it doesn't matter if it helps a thousand, they oppose theft.

Why have a law against murder if murder is just fine?
Would suicide be just fine?

Suppose everyone in a village thinks a sales tax to provide sewers is a good idea, and they all vote for it. Is that theft?

Suppose one person doesn't agree?

What if it's an HOA and everyone signs an agreement before purchasing a house there, providing for a such a tax, and requiring anyone who wants to life there to agree to the tax. Is that theft?
Last edited by The Barbarian on Mon Apr 05, 2021 11:34 am, edited 1 time in total.

Dimmesdale
Sage
Posts: 726
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 7:19 pm
Location: The Temple of Logic
Has thanked: 26 times
Been thanked: 85 times

Re: Not-so-strange bed fellows?

Post #6

Post by Dimmesdale »

nobspeople wrote: Fri Feb 19, 2021 10:14 am Religion these days is, much of the time, a different form of politics:
leaders are elected
churches tell their members how to vote
religion influences society, many times, through legalities
more popular religions have money, using it to promote their own agendas
religions control the lives of people

And on and on.

Why do so many believers seem to get upset when their religion is compared to politics? They are so similar it's hard to tell them apart sometimes.
Politics stinks in the nostrils of many, because of how base it all feels, especially these days. Religion is supposed to be transcendent, pure, unmotivated by base desires like ambition..... If people have a bad view of politics, they will not want to relate it to religion, the holy of holies, in any way, but cast it far, far away.....

If only that could be the case. In truth, religion and politics ARE related, whether people want to accept it or not. To say that one does not impact the other is to be disingenuous or naive. What matters is how you DO politics and religion. As with all things, they can be done either well or poorly. What can't be done is avoiding both as non-issues. That only causes the issues to boil over because of neglect.

God is a King in the Holy Bible, no? Therefore, he has something to say about ruling people. Ruling them in terms of the Church as well as the State. We are made in the image of God, so we are each of us small kings/queens, mini-rulers, who have, by way of extension, a little bit of power parcelled out to us, from that original source of power.....

Politics is messy, but many don't want their religion to be messy. Because we exist in the real world, politics remains messy, and for the same reason religion is not going to be a cakewalk either. Both need to be worked at continually, and we can't settle for anything less. There is no rest in this world. We must be tireless, semper reformanda. Till we drop. And I say this as a non-Christian.
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 510
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 94 times
Been thanked: 323 times

Re: Not-so-strange bed fellows?

Post #7

Post by The Barbarian »

God is a King in the Holy Bible, no? Therefore, he has something to say about ruling people. Ruling them in terms of the Church as well as the State. We are made in the image of God, so we are each of us small kings/queens, mini-rulers, who have, by way of extension, a little bit of power parcelled out to us, from that original source of power.....
This is a good point, In the OT, God was, at first, officially the king of the land of Israel. Jesus moved all that aside, as He preached a God Who was not a Ruler in the sense of earthly kings, but a Ruler Who would, if we only followed Him, show us the truth and make us free, not his subjects. Bound to Him only by love, we become His fellows and not His slaves.

John 8:32 And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

“You're my best friend, Jan, you've been with me through everything, and I've not always been a good friend to you.” he hesitated. “I know this sounds weird, but I've grown to love you.”

Jan smiled. “You know, I love you too. And when you weren't always the best friend, you always tried to make it up to me.

“Something weird has happened the last few weeks, Jan. Hear me out and tell me I'm not going crazy.” Jan looked over his glasses at Carl, and lifted one eyebrow, but said nothing.

“I've been having these terrible dreams where Miranda died and left me alone, and all I could do was cry. I was alone for years, grieving for her.”

“Have you told Miranda?”

“Yes, and when I told her, she just smiled and kissed me and said “well, it's over, and you have me here and now; I'm not going anywhere.”

“That's it?”

“No, it's not. This is the really weird part. My knee has stopped bothering me. And I bounce out of bed in the morning like a kid. And even the people I meet during the day are better to be with, and seem happier than before. Everyone I know. Is this what dementia is like?”

“No, it's not dementia. That would be different. You're just settling in.”

Carl stared at Jan.

“What's going on, Jan, tell me.”

“What if things went on this way forever for you?”

“I'd be perfectly happy with that. If only.”

Jan smiled kindly at him.

“Soon those dreams will go away, and they'll never bother you again. They are in the past, and the past is gone. Things that happened in the past are just dreams that will soon fade away. All there is here, is the now. “

“Here?”

“Yes, Carl, here is where you were meant to be, where I wanted everyone to be. You'll be with Miranda forever and I will be your friend forever. It takes a little time to adjust, that's all.” You took care of me and I'll take care of you forever.”

“When did I take care of you?”

“When you passed that money quietly to Jonathan when he lost his job. When you gave up your Saturday to help move the Carroll family when they were evicted. Whenever you took care of them, you took care of me.”

Carl stared, open-mouthed at Jan, who was still smiling, looking slightly amused. He slid off the bar stool and went to his knees.

“Get up, Carl” Jan chuckled. “we don't do that kind of thing here.” He helped Carl back to his seat.

“But I don't deserve this.”

“No, you don't. But it's my gift to you, for loving me. And yes, when you loved those people who were hurting, you were loving me.”

“What can I do to thank you... Jan?”

“Jan is fine. I like the name. All you have to do is love me. And love everyone here with you. All I ever expected of you. Be happy with Miranda.

And be sure you're here at Doug's now and then on Friday afternoons for a beer or two with me, hear? Have a great eternity my friend.”

User avatar
Purple Knight
Guru
Posts: 2112
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 668 times
Been thanked: 407 times

Re: Not-so-strange bed fellows?

Post #8

Post by Purple Knight »

The Barbarian wrote: Mon Apr 05, 2021 11:20 amLet's see... suppose a man abducts and murders someone. The police know he's the one, and plant a listening device in the conference room with his lawyer to get evidence they need to confirm his guilt. When this fact is made known at trial, the judge (as the law requires) throws out the evidence and sets him free. Was that good? Perhaps "good" is the issue. Morally, it's a travesty. But unless such laws are enforced, it encourages tyranny and police misconduct.
First off this isn't an instance of generally accepted evil; this is hotly disputed along exactly the lines you mention. If you believe in the greater good, then this isn't evil. But if you don't believe in the greater good, you probably wouldn't support sacrificing one instance of justice to prevent police abuses that might amount to greater injustices.
The Barbarian wrote: Mon Apr 05, 2021 11:20 amUsed to be, the law punished blasphemy. It remains a generally accepted evil. But it harms no one but the person who blasphemes. Why shouldn't blasphemy be punishable? Because the state has no overriding public purpose to do so.
No one believes blasphemy is evil. Not anymore, which is why the law doesn't punish it. The few people who think they believe blasphemy is evil would obviously not consider it evil if it was against a religion other than their own. So what they really believe is that their religion happens to be true and their god will punish them for blaspheming. They don't believe the act of blasphemy is inherently evil.

Same for homosexuality. Used to be criminal. Not anymore, because peoples' views came around.
The Barbarian wrote: Sun Apr 04, 2021 12:06 pmIf you talk to a Marxist, he'll tell you that in a communist state, there will be no coercive laws at all.

However, I notice libertarians and Marxists behave differently in the real world. What political theory says and what practice entails turns out to be two different things.
So? If they don't really believe what they're spouting, they're still spouting it. That's still their platform. Still their ideology. Still their political beliefs.
Politics is about enforcing morality.
In some ideologies. Not in anything remotely libertarian.
The Barbarian wrote: Mon Apr 05, 2021 11:20 amIt has an interesting history in Anglo-Saxon legal evolution, not quite what it has been interpreted to be, today:

What Are Mala In Se Crimes?
Mala in se, which is the plural of malum in se, are criminal acts that are wrong because they violate the moral, public, or natural principles of a society. In the traditional British criminal justice system that the American justice system is based on, crimes that offended society were punished by death or serious harm. Today, mala in se crimes are not traditionally punishable by death, but still face serious sentences.

https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/ ... rimes.html

Murder, Rape, Homosexual acts, theft, blasphemy, and so on, were considered Mala in se Or hearme ricieu hamsocna in OE. Anglo-Saxon has a literalist bent, so that evil is rooted in "harm."
That's just what I've said; people seem to agree that evil means, or at least, usually is, harming others.
The Barbarian wrote: Mon Apr 05, 2021 11:20 amWould suicide be just fine?
According to who? I don't think that addresses my question anyway.
The Barbarian wrote: Mon Apr 05, 2021 11:20 amSuppose everyone in a village thinks a sales tax to provide sewers is a good idea, and they all vote for it. Is that theft?

Suppose one person doesn't agree?

What if it's an HOA and everyone signs an agreement before purchasing a house there, providing for a such a tax, and requiring anyone who wants to life there to agree to the tax. Is that theft?
Libertarians generally agree that the HOA is fine but the government taxes are not. Don't ask me to defend them; I'm just telling you what they think. They seem to think that only the guy with the sash that says "Government" can possibly do anything wrong, and that me or you doing the exact same thing the government does, oppressing people in the exact same way, would not be wrong.

The Kangaroo
Newbie
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2021 2:27 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Not-so-strange bed fellows?

Post #9

Post by The Kangaroo »

[Replying to nobspeople in post #1]

There is a sense among "True Believers" that their religion makes them better than scummy politicians. One term to describe this phenomenon is hubris. Another is cluelessness. There are big scandals in religion (The Falwells, Ravi Zacharias, Jim Jones, Osama Bin Laden) and in politics (Matt Gaetz, Katie Hill, Al Franken, Ted Cruz, Viktor Orban) because these are endeavors undertaken by people.

Some people say "Never talk politics or religion." so instead people talk about inanities.

Look at things like Major League Baseball pulling out of Georgia over voter suppression. The NCAA weighing in in favor of trans athletes.
Normally for a business' brand it's better to be apolitical but sometimes it's too important to just let it go.

User avatar
Aetixintro
Site Supporter
Posts: 894
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 3:18 am
Location: Metropolitan-Oslo, Norway, Europe
Has thanked: 398 times
Been thanked: 25 times
Contact:

Re: Not-so-strange bed fellows?

Post #10

Post by Aetixintro »

[Replying to nobspeople in post #1]

There is an important difference. Politics does not have The 10 Commandments or The Golden Rule. On the contrary, politics is known for exploiting religious feelings, as in Adolf Hitler and others. It's the politics that wages war and does the corrupt, not the word of God! Remember! :!:
I'm cool! :) - Stronger Religion every day! Also by "mathematical Religion", the eternal forms, God closing the door on corrupt humanity, possibly!

Post Reply