Is Secular Leftism A Religion?

[Lark]

So, people have called Atheism a religion, and now people call leftism a religion. Heh.

Religion is defined as "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods". Now, some could argue that communist dictatorships are religions due to the deification of the dear leader, and that would be a valid observation, but this accusation isn't applicable to social justice. The aim is the emancipation of the individual to improve their material well-being in this world, and with that the abandonment of traditions which trap people within their hierarchy. Social justice is the opposite of a religion in that it's steeped in humanist values - the attachment of value to human rather than divine or supernatural matters.

You're appropriating a term to use as a snarl word, one which serves to create a false equivalence between one values system you don't like and a separate values system.

Is that the only definition of religion or is it your definition?

Its not even the only definition in the thread so far.

 

[Coriolis]

So, people have called Atheism a religion, and now people call leftism a religion. Heh.

Religion is defined as "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods". Now, some could argue that communist dictatorships are religions due to the deification of the dear leader, and that would be a valid observation, but this accusation isn't applicable to social justice. The aim is the emancipation of the individual to improve their material well-being in this world, and with that the abandonment of traditions which trap people within their hierarchy. Social justice is the opposite of a religion in that it's steeped in humanist values - the attachment of value to human rather than divine or supernatural matters.

You're appropriating a term to use as a snarl word, one which serves to create a false equivalence between one values system you don't like and a separate values system.

Is that the only definition of religion or is it your definition?

Its not even the only definition in the thread so far.

It is fine for the OP to specify which definition of a key term he wants to use. As long as that is clear, we at least know what we are talking about. It is also fine to take issue with that definition and propose/use another, again, as long as that is specified. Atheism and political ideologies don't meet any definition of religion that I find useful, though both can be considered beliefs/belief systems. Religions, and here I mean systems of spirituality that acknowledge a deity/supreme being or at least a non-physical dimension to life/the world, are only one subset of human beliefs.

 

[Lark]

It is fine for the OP to specify which definition of a key term he wants to use. As long as that is clear, we at least know what we are talking about. It is also fine to take issue with that definition and propose/use another, again, as long as that is specified. Atheism and political ideologies don't meet any definition of religion that I find useful, though both can be considered beliefs/belief systems. Religions, and here I mean systems of spirituality that acknowledge a deity/supreme being or at least a non-physical dimension to life/the world, are only one subset of human beliefs.

Sure.

Mentioning ideology is a good idea as ideology was supposedly the alternative to religion and tradition from shortly before the French revolution onwards.

 

[Shadow Play]

Is that the only definition of religion or is it your definition?

Its not even the only definition in the thread so far.

My post was addressed to the OP, and I admittedly haven't read through the other posts in this thread. Thus, I couldn't say with certainty what other definitions (both home brewed and copied from dictionaries) had been used. In my case, I consulted Oxford Dictionaries, and it offered three different definitions.

This is the one I consulted.

The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

As for the other two, one was "a particular system of faith and worship", which is basically more of the same. I noted that the veneration of communist leaders could be considered religious, based on the grounds of deification, but I didn't see how that was applicable to an abstract set of values. Social justice isn't so much an all-encompassing whole as it is a hodgepodge of various progressive values, and advocates for social justice themselves sometimes debate over what's necessary or acceptable. Which is another reason why OP's comparison to religion falls short.

The third one was "a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion". Now, you could argue that an interest in social justice is religious if someone is dedicated to it, but by that rationale, one could argue that football or music is a religion. Calling things a "religion" just because you happen to dislike them trivialises the term until it becomes meaningless.

 

[Coriolis]

The third one was "a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion". Now, you could argue that an interest in social justice is religious if someone is dedicated to it, but by that rationale, one could argue that football or music is a religion. Calling things a "religion" just because you happen to dislike them trivialises the term until it becomes meaningless.

That was my objection as well, namely that the definition the OP seems to be using is too broad and encompasses too much to make the discussion worthwhile.

 

[Shadow Play]

That was my objection as well, namely that the definition the OP seems to be using is too broad and encompasses too much to make the discussion worthwhile.

Agreed.

 

[anticlimatic]

Me: *starts thread to compare ingredients in mixed drinks*

TypeoC: “What’s alcohol though?”

Me:

 

[Shadow Play]

Me: *starts thread to compare ingredients in mixed drinks*

TypeoC: “What’s alcohol though?”

Me:

You: *slaps random labels onto bottles of various drinks and mixtures*

Me: *opens up one bottle labelled "rum", only to find there's coca-cola instead*

Me: "This doesn't look, smell, or taste like rum. It's coca-cola!"

You: "But it is rum! It's rum because I want to label it that way, and if you want me to serve you a drink, you'll have to request mixtures using the labels I've assigned them."

 

[Maou]

What happened to nuance?

 

[anticlimatic]

You: *slaps random labels onto bottles of various drinks and mixtures*

Me: *opens up one bottle labelled "rum", only to find there's coca-cola instead*

Me: "This doesn't look, smell, or taste like rum. It's coca-cola!"

You: "But it is rum! It's rum because I want to label it that way, and if you want me to serve you a drink, you'll have to request mixtures using the labels I've assigned them."

Ha. Well before I start disagreeing with you, I would at least like to award you with 5 points for this refreshingly witty analogous response.

Personally I have never held a definition of religion that required a magical "God" creature, so to speak, so you can understand if I'm confused as to why that part matters at all to some of you. I consider it an almost completely irrelevant detail when it comes to discussions on religion. Nontheistic religions (Nontheistic religion - Wikipedia) are so similar to theistic religions, in fact, that there are people within the exact same religion who take that detail one way or the other (yes or no). Religion has far more to do with faith than a God, in my opinion, and ignoring every other aspect of it but that feels to me like ignoring any alcohol that isn't liquor because it's not real alcohol.

 

[Shadow Play]

Ha. Well before I start disagreeing with you, I would at least like to award you with 5 points for this refreshingly witty analogous response.

Personally I have never held a definition of religion that required a magical "God" creature, so to speak, so you can understand if I'm confused as to why that part matters at all to some of you. I consider it an almost completely irrelevant detail when it comes to discussions on religion. Nontheistic religions (Nontheistic religion - Wikipedia) are so similar to theistic religions, in fact, that there are people within the exact same religion who take that detail one way or the other (yes or no). Religion has far more to do with faith than a God, in my opinion, and ignoring every other aspect of it but that feels to me like ignoring any alcohol that isn't liquor because it's not real alcohol.

You invoke the existence of non-theistic religions, but even though they don't require a belief in a god or gods, they still contain a belief in a spiritual force or in spirits. There's a supernatural component to them.

As I've said before, social justice is less of an all encompassing whole and more of a bunch of values and causes grouped together with one label. So, someone who holds the conviction that slavery is wrong could dedicate their whole life to ending it, while also choosing to make that issue their main focus instead of another issue such as climate change or police brutality. It could be described as a belief if the individual considers slavery universally wrong for everyone, but that doesn't make it a religion.

More importantly, is religion a necessary term when ideology can adequately describe a values system?

 

[anticlimatic]

You invoke the existence of non-theistic religions, but even though they don't require a belief in a god or gods, they still contain a belief in a spiritual force or in spirits. There's a supernatural component to them.

As I've said before, social justice is less of an all encompassing whole and more of a bunch of values and causes grouped together with one label. So, someone who holds the conviction that slavery is wrong could dedicate their whole life to ending it, while also choosing to make that issue their main focus instead of another issue such as climate change or police brutality. It could be described as a belief if the individual considers slavery universally wrong for everyone, but that doesn't make it a religion.

More importantly, is religion a necessary term when ideology can adequately describe a values system?

First, thanks for inspiring these two:

Evangelism
Social Justice

Armageddon
Climate Change

Now, you do have a point that SOMETHING spiritual is usually a pretty blatant facet of religion while there is nothing inherently 'spiritual' about secular leftism. Typically religion is separate from general ideology by a God or Supreme Ideal separate from the self, and also the spiritual notion of a soul- something that is both unique from individual to individual, but at the same time worth no more or less than any other person's, and is not something that is bound by the physical realm. I give you:

The soul/spirit
Gender Identity

Is a new term necessary when a traditional one adequately describes something? Probably not. On this issue there are some reasons for it, though. First, there is something relatively new that has happened to western secular leftism that has made it something more than mere 'ideology' is capable of describing. It involves too much faith beyond logical reasoning (like the idea that men and women are identical), and it prosecutes heresy within its own ranks in a way that reminds me of spanish inquisition Catholicism. It wasn't enough that Louis CK identified as a feminist and voted for Hillary Clinton, his abuse of unchecked original sin to consensually masturbate in front of less powerful individuals was enough to burn him at the stake. The second reason is that religion, for all its benefits, can be FUCKING. DANGEROUS. Especially if nobody is talking about the whys and hows, and you don't really understand what you're getting yourself into when you sign up.

Thanks again for the thoughtful response.

 

[Lark]

So to sum up, in this thread religion and cult are synonymous?

Is it possible to be critical of right wing politics without this sort of smearing?

Seems like a totalitarian way of looking at things, probably a good indication of private doubts into the bargain.

 

[Shadow Play]

First, thanks for inspiring these two:

Evangelism
Social Justice

Armageddon
Climate Change

Now, you do have a point that SOMETHING spiritual is usually a pretty blatant facet of religion while there is nothing inherently 'spiritual' about secular leftism. Typically religion is separate from general ideology by a God or Supreme Ideal separate from the self, and also the spiritual notion of a soul- something that is both unique from individual to individual, but at the same time worth no more or less than any other person's, and is not something that is bound by the physical realm. I give you:

The soul/spirit
Gender Identity

Is a new term necessary when a traditional one adequately describes something? Probably not. On this issue there are some reasons for it, though. First, there is something relatively new that has happened to western secular leftism that has made it something more than mere 'ideology' is capable of describing. It involves too much faith beyond logical reasoning (like the idea that men and women are identical), and it prosecutes heresy within its own ranks in a way that reminds me of spanish inquisition Catholicism. It wasn't enough that Louis CK identified as a feminist and voted for Hillary Clinton, his abuse of unchecked original sin to consensually masturbate in front of less powerful individuals was enough to burn him at the stake. The second reason is that religion, for all its benefits, can be FUCKING. DANGEROUS. Especially if nobody is talking about the whys and hows, and you don't really understand what you're getting yourself into when you sign up.

Thanks again for the thoughtful response.

Drawing a highly questionable comparison between gender identify and the soul/spirit isn't enough to prove that social justice is a "religion". In order for it to do so, gender identity would have to be the most pivotal issue, when it's in fact one of many others.

I'm on the fence over the debate of nature vs. nurture when it comes to gender identity, and I suspect both have some role to play. Where I take issue with gender norms is in the prescriptive way in which they are applied, which leads to oppressive hierarchical structures. So, maybe men might be a bit more predisposed towards pursuing STEM careers than women, but that doesn't mean women who pursue STEM are any less capable, and it certainly doesn't justify social norms which discourage women from STEM (i.e. "girls can't do math").

The comparison between climate change and Armageddon has weight, but let's say someone has definite evidence which proves the world will end this year. There wouldn't be cause for ridicule if we should worry about the world ending tomorrow. Armageddon is only a cause for mockery because its fears are unfounded, while climate change is a scientific fact.

As for the issue of Louis CK, I must stress that context needs to be accounted for, and in jumping to the conclusion that it was okay because he "consensually" masturbated, it does not put you on a pedestal over mob justice groups jumping to conclusions through the same process. It's not all black and white. The individuals he masturbated in front of might've agreed either out of disbelief or fear of the consequences of denying him.

You speak of social justice as though it were a monolith, when it's a collection of individuals with similar worldviews who often disagree on finer points. If asked about fiscal policy, a neoliberal, a social democrat, an anarchist, and a tankie probably aren't going to see eye to eye even if they might generally agree on gender issues. Inversely, two social democrats might agree on fiscal policy, but disagree on how to address undocumented immigration.

 

[Cellmold]

There's a broader context beyond religiosity which is mired firmly in some of the common trappings of human beings that all of us can fall prone to.
This is going to be intensely dissatisfying to anyone who only understands a division, but not any degrees within that division. Because the generalities, no matter how true, are not easy to grapple with, there is no set technique or system. Just many difficult ideas and contexts, often without easy answers, but no matter, just paint them as the realms of ineffectual fence-sitters and carry on just the same.

With that said, some common factors are: The need for security and social consent, the difficulty and temporal limitations of trying to 'think' and examine all the relevant information and angles. The desire to have a direction and have that be part of an emotionally meaningful existence. The need for decision making and a conclusion to every uncomfortable, unknown, aspect of reality.

These all lead into the same issues within taking the literal too far and misunderstanding metaphor. This is not the problem of any particar position, but some ideologies are more prevelant than others. However it's worth nothing that the political right has it's own issues in this area. Just how many videos are there of one talking head 'destroying' another? Or (abstracted to the nth degree) memes of a certain kind of political opponent. Surely that's not the realms only of the left?

There are enough, I think, to level the accusatory playing field somewhat. Still, I think there lots of valid positions either side.

And there is always a danger of becoming absorbed in your ideologies to an extremely unquestioning level.
My only solution is to be careful of myself and where I am susceptible, a daily challenge. And much harder than relying on the external villains of my bullet-point perceptions of ideological opposition.

But then again, I would say that.

Decision making seems invented to destroy nuance. Or at least a certain kind, especially where blame can be assigned to a general outline of a group under the banner of one characteristic or another. I understand that this isn't easy to wrestle with and so I also understand that sometimes demonisation moves towards some kind of solution.

Just be careful of where that solution leads, my fellow fools.

 

[Red Memories]

I must say I'm a little irritated you compared secular leftism with Christianity, something most of these people have fought very hard to throw out of everything. Though at the same time it is quite ironic. They're fighting what they are in a sense there.

Nevertheless, I think people can often treat something like this almost religiously, for instance I had a friend who searched all their answers from google but was not religious so I suggested that he replaced God with google, therefore his god is the internet. I've had others I told treat science as if it is a god, religion because they believe in it although there is flaws in it as well. I think it can be possible, but ultimately it is not a religion nor should it be defined as one.

 

[Tilt]

Can't relate. I am an atheist, because an higher power just does not align with my own perceptions...and it never has and never will.

 

[Lark]

Still dont know why this matters.

Unless you're trashing religion and trying to trash liberalism by association. Or vice versa, I guess.

 

[anticlimatic]

Still dont know why this matters.

Unless you're trashing religion and trying to trash liberalism by association. Or vice versa, I guess.

Because the only thing that matters is trashing people?

Yes. Why ever would anyone be interested in things people have in common, who think they hate each other and don’t realize they have things in common. Of what use could that ever be.

 

[Lark]

Can't relate. I am an atheist, because an higher power just does not align with my own perceptions...and it never has and never will.

Probably a good thing you dont feel that way about gravity then