Religion is poison to democracy

[Mister Agenda]

There are denominations of Chrisitanity (congregatinalist) and at least one religion run democratically (Unitarian Universalism). If they can get the other 99.95% of religion to join them, that would likely be an improvement.

would the democratically run christian denomination accept a practicing muslim as an democratic equal?

I doubt the Christian congregationalists would accep a muslim as a member. The UUs would (and do).

[Mister Agenda]

The guy who wrote this article is actually a druid, and has been writing about his type of "religiousness" for years.

You can tell from his analysis of political issues that you'd never want him to vote. Read the article and believe exactly the opposite.

https://unherd.com/2023/04/americas-empire-is-bankrupt/

I read the article and I'm unclear on why I wouldn't want the author to vote. I don't agree 100% with their analysis, but the article didn't strike me as the ravings of a wingnut; just a person committed to an ideology.

[The Grand Nudger]

A person has to be pretty committed to a routine not to see both why and what kinds of religions are a risk for and to democratic governments.

There are fundamentally antidemocratic religions who believe that their gods are the literal kings of creation, complete with binding commandments for all of humanity at all times in any situation. That their values are the only permissible expression of everyday civic relationships and responsibility. This incompatibility with anyone else's mere existence has always lead to discriminatory and eliminationist policy for societies infiltrated by these religions, in past and today.

Contemporary paganism, otoh, is very commonly an acknowledgement and rejection of that. Exactly that. Specifically that. Whatever other weird shit a neo pagan gets into, they're actually bound into a moral community by that rejection as a movement just as the dominionists are bound to their own antithetical and antidemocratic one. It seems silly to even have to ask what we or democracy are supposed to be worried about by a (real or hypothetically)fanatical pluralist.

End of the day, it's unreasonable to expect that a person would not be compelled by whatever religious beliefs they hold, or that, even if such a principled distance from their own most genuine beliefs could be achieved, that it would/could be maintained by many, all at once, uniformly, or very often. So the content and quality of a religions beliefs do matter with respect to democratic governance. Probably not a good idea for a death cult deferring to their ghost king to be in charge......eh?

[Belacqua]

The guy who wrote this article is actually a druid, and has been writing about his type of "religiousness" for years.

You can tell from his analysis of political issues that you'd never want him to vote. Read the article and believe exactly the opposite.

https://unherd.com/2023/04/americas-empire-is-bankrupt/

I read the article and I'm unclear on why I wouldn't want the author to vote. I don't agree 100% with their analysis, but the article didn't strike me as the ravings of a wingnut; just a person committed to an ideology.

Well, he's religious. He is steeped in "religiousness." He believes many many things that science can't confirm. 

So according to all the posts on the first two pages of this thread, he must not be trusted anywhere near democracy. 

Personally, I think he's brilliant.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The guy who wrote this article is actually a druid, and has been writing about his type of "religiousness" for years.

You can tell from his analysis of political issues that you'd never want him to vote. Read the article and believe exactly the opposite.

https://unherd.com/2023/04/americas-empire-is-bankrupt/

A Druid? Really? I’m surprised he hasn’t gotten into trouble with the authorities over his human sacrifices. 

He’s a Neo-Druid. Not the same thing at all.

Boru

[arewethereyet]

I read the article and I'm unclear on why I wouldn't want the author to vote. I don't agree 100% with their analysis, but the article didn't strike me as the ravings of a wingnut; just a person committed to an ideology.

Well, he's religious. He is steeped in "religiousness." He believes many many things that science can't confirm. 

So according to all the posts on the first two pages of this thread, he must not be trusted anywhere near democracy. 

Personally, I think he's brilliant.

Of course you think he's brilliant.  He's a US basher.  Color me surprised.

[Silver]

Atwood is not particularly a fan of the US either, but her Handmaid's Tale is brilliant. In my Sapience novel, I took a similar approach to the country but really disabled a certain ideology at the end.

[arewethereyet]

Atwood is not particularly a fan of the US either, but her Handmaid's Tale is brilliant. In my Sapience novel, I took a similar approach to the country but really disabled a certain ideology at the end.

I actually like the series much better than I liked the book.  Usually it's the reverse but I was under-impressed with the book.

[The Valkyrie]

The guy who wrote this article is actually a druid, and has been writing about his type of "religiousness" for years.

You can tell from his analysis of political issues that you'd never want him to vote. Read the article and believe exactly the opposite.

https://unherd.com/2023/04/americas-empire-is-bankrupt/

A Druid? Really? I’m surprised he hasn’t gotten into trouble with the authorities over his human sacrifices. 

He’s a Neo-Druid. Not the same thing at all.

Boru

I want to see these guys build a wicker man.

Put in all the kiddie fiddlers and watch them burn.

[Mister Agenda]

I read the article and I'm unclear on why I wouldn't want the author to vote. I don't agree 100% with their analysis, but the article didn't strike me as the ravings of a wingnut; just a person committed to an ideology.

Well, he's religious. He is steeped in "religiousness." He believes many many things that science can't confirm. 

So according to all the posts on the first two pages of this thread, he must not be trusted anywhere near democracy. 

Personally, I think he's brilliant.

Nothing in the posts on the first two pages claimed relgious people shouldn't be allowed to vote. That's your personal takeaway; but I don't think it follows that if religions aren't democratic, relgious people shouldn't be allowed to participate in democracy. The US military isn't democratic, and leans about 72% to the right; but I absolutely want servicepeople to be able to vote.