Religion is poison to democracy

[Belacqua]

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.

Well, OK, if you don't mind a democracy that's poisoned.

[The Grand Nudger]

Democracy will always be poisoned. In theory, this can be mediated by democratic republics. Where, even if all the christers in christtown are braying to be washed in the blood of jesus on the courthouse steps - somebody steps in with the authority to say "hey, fellow nuts, I'm as nuts as you are, I want that superbad too - but that's not how this government is run!".

In practice, well...the link in the study shows how governments of any kind can be captured by malignant religions.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I think it’s more accurate to say that religion poisons democracy when the line between church and state becomes so fuzzy that candidates - whether they themselves are religious or not - get it in their collective heads that they have to kowtow to the demands of religious voters.

By way of example, the current foofaraw in the US over abortion rights is largely to appease Christian voters by codifying their ‘sanctity of life’ tenet into law. Since Christians are unarguably the largest religious voting block, they’re the ones that get this special treatment. You don’t see candidates clamoring to outlaw the consumption of beef to get the Hindu vote.

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

"Christians" used to be the largest block, now the term means little to nothing in american demographics. Hence..the current foofaraw. Appeasing "christians"..sure, but only "christians" in the sense that it appeases nuts who happen to be christian. Abortion, ofc, has a long history within american christendom defined by less restrictive and more accurate designations, or by the actual opinions on abortion of people who also otherwise self identify as christian.

I'll put a super closed point on this matter. Most of the babies aborted in the us are christian babies, aborted by christian parents, who remain christian both during and after their very christian abortions.

[Silver]

If god cared so much about babies, he wouldn't have ordered them to be bashed against rocks.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

"Christians" used to be the largest block, now the term means little to nothing in american demographics.  Hence..the current foofaraw.  Appeasing "christians"..sure, but only "christians" in the sense that it appeases nuts who happen to be christian.  Abortion, ofc, has a long history within american christendom defined by less restrictive and more accurate designations, or by the actual opinions on abortion of people who also otherwise self identify as christian.

I'll put a super closed point on this matter.  Most of the babies aborted in the us are christian babies, aborted by christian parents, who remain christian both during and after their very christian abortions.

And yet the number of self-styled ‘Christians’ who support reproductive rights is insignificant (as a voting bloc) next to those who don’t.

Boru

[Silver]

As has always been the case with the hypocritical christian, it's more about controlling others while they still get to do whatever they want.

It's the laws don't apply to me King Mentality.

[The Grand Nudger]

"Christians" used to be the largest block, now the term means little to nothing in american demographics.  Hence..the current foofaraw.  Appeasing "christians"..sure, but only "christians" in the sense that it appeases nuts who happen to be christian.  Abortion, ofc, has a long history within american christendom defined by less restrictive and more accurate designations, or by the actual opinions on abortion of people who also otherwise self identify as christian.

I'll put a super closed point on this matter.  Most of the babies aborted in the us are christian babies, aborted by christian parents, who remain christian both during and after their very christian abortions.

And yet the number of self-styled ‘Christians’ who support reproductive rights is insignificant (as a voting bloc) next to those who don’t.

Boru

Except they aren't.  Like the wild west view of guns in the us, a puritanical american stance on abortion is part of our legend, not our reality.  The majority of the support for legalized abortions in this country self identifies as christian now, and always has.  They've been significant enough to keep an antimajoritarian movement of clerics engaged in a lawyers coup ....for a century.....from succeeding. Significant enough to require a generation spanning campaign of disenfranchisement to even build a rough semi-parity on technical grounds. That's why, in the us, anti-abortion propaganda relies on an alternate history of the us, and framing about "on demand up to birth abortions". We've literally never held views like those being mainlined now. For most of us history, christian or otherwise...there wasn't even a baby until you felt it kick..because...with no public health system, ever, lots of shit can and has gone wrong.

The entire abortion thing is manufactured, and manufactured recently. My wife is a christian who strongly supports reproductive rights. Her grandparents were the same. Her parents - our parents generation, are an aberration in that regard. That's when dominionism started making it's latest push, bordered on the other end by the "multicultural" 90's. This stuff moves slowly enough to track and study - for all the good it does us. It's basically a modern marketing sweep that nuts have convinced anyone, here in the states or anywhere else, that the us has some strong tradition of this shit.

[Mister Agenda]

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.

Well, OK, if you don't mind a democracy that's poisoned.

It would be more poisonous if religious people and service people weren't allowed to vote. I wouldn't consider a country that restricted voting on those critera to be a real democracy. It's not much of a democracy if people aren't allowed to vote based on ideology or religion; that is, on who they disagree with.

[Belacqua]

It would be more poisonous if religious people and service people weren't allowed to vote. I wouldn't consider a country that restricted voting on those critera to be a real democracy. It's not much of a democracy if people aren't allowed to vote based on ideology or religion; that is, on who they disagree with.

Yes, I agree with you.

If in fact it's true that "religion is poison to democracy" only and always, or that "religion poisons everything" as a general rule, then the logical conclusion is that religion should be excluded from democracy, and as many other things as possible.

But I think people who type such phrases aren't thinking about the ramifications of what they say. It's really phatic speech -- more like a grunt than a reasoned argument.