RE: The Religious Void
January 14, 2021 at 12:40 pm
(This post was last modified: January 14, 2021 at 12:54 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
Except for behaviors that harm somebody is a pregnant caveat, don't you think? Particularly when a religious person insists that they must harm, or even must be allowed to harm. Ultimately, that a specific harm is right and must be done, no less.
With respect to the demands that religiosity (of any kind) makes on politics and others who have the misfortune to have been born in their vicinity, that's pretty much the only question. If people are compelled by their religion to lick their own doorknobs...that seems unwise, but have at it. If people are compelled by their religion to harm, we have a difficult problem. Difficult only in that free expression is a core item of western ideology. When they insist that their religion compels them to enact forced birth laws, compels them to deny children lifesaving medical care or harm and abuse them in any number of creative ways, when they engage in discriminatory hiring practices or predatory financial schemes.
...when they insist that they be made the law of the land............
I think that comes back to the question of the void. Some people might fill the void with whatever content would be required to reinforce their worldview in the absence of their ability to genuinely express it in what we might call traditional terms. Political religiosity takes this form. If it reduces religiosity in other areas it's probably only on account of it taking up a persons time, and vv, from the other direction or religious politics. The whole thing may be moot, ofc, since the two are generally aligned and sympathetic or literally identical. Your position on the chopping of hands for theft comes to mind as an example of pretty much everything above. Would that be a religiously political position, a politically religious position, or is there no meaningful difference?
In practice, the same thing happens here - a majority of religious people create a religious state, du jure or de facto - but in principle, it's something that we seek to avoid precisely because we recognize the great opportunity for harm that this sort of thing presents. Harm perpetrated by those actors - but also harm to those actors from our government.
With respect to the demands that religiosity (of any kind) makes on politics and others who have the misfortune to have been born in their vicinity, that's pretty much the only question. If people are compelled by their religion to lick their own doorknobs...that seems unwise, but have at it. If people are compelled by their religion to harm, we have a difficult problem. Difficult only in that free expression is a core item of western ideology. When they insist that their religion compels them to enact forced birth laws, compels them to deny children lifesaving medical care or harm and abuse them in any number of creative ways, when they engage in discriminatory hiring practices or predatory financial schemes.
...when they insist that they be made the law of the land............
I think that comes back to the question of the void. Some people might fill the void with whatever content would be required to reinforce their worldview in the absence of their ability to genuinely express it in what we might call traditional terms. Political religiosity takes this form. If it reduces religiosity in other areas it's probably only on account of it taking up a persons time, and vv, from the other direction or religious politics. The whole thing may be moot, ofc, since the two are generally aligned and sympathetic or literally identical. Your position on the chopping of hands for theft comes to mind as an example of pretty much everything above. Would that be a religiously political position, a politically religious position, or is there no meaningful difference?
In practice, the same thing happens here - a majority of religious people create a religious state, du jure or de facto - but in principle, it's something that we seek to avoid precisely because we recognize the great opportunity for harm that this sort of thing presents. Harm perpetrated by those actors - but also harm to those actors from our government.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
