Is Secular Leftism A Religion?

[Lark]

religions are run by Republicans

I think plenty are.

The thing about most of the different alt right and even more mainstream conservative tendencies that I encounter is that they all strike me as being very, very similar to different evangelical protestant congregations, its no mistake that the tele-evangelists are popular with the same audiences.

 

[Lark]

I know one pagan Trump voter/supporter. Not sure if they still are.

I know a lot of congruent thinking between contemporary satanists and most of the libertine/libertarian free market capitalists.

At least ideologically, I'd say there's character structure underlying all of this, the ideologies, religions, whatever are all just channels for particular personality typologies or character structures anyway.

 

[ceecee]

"To be deeply loved by someone gives you strength, to love someone deeply gives you courage."

Im a universalist myself, which I suppose would include any postulates of wisdom that might emerge from the secular leftism religion too. "No justice no peace" seems to have some macro resonance.

And I was persecuted as an outlier most of my young adulthood from fundamentalist Christian authoritarian types, often in "gang up on me" scenarios. It's from those experiences that I began noticing similar patterns from the cultural left, and I'm not surprised other people are picking up on it after George Floyd.

lol You do not want the left adopting the free speech absolutism of the right or what you think the right is. Do. Not.

This is the reason you are "noticing patterns" from the cultural left since George Floyd yet miss shit like Republicans directly attacking the 1st Amendment rights of Americans by law. So let me know when you are able to see this matter clearly, you are not doing that at the moment.

US Republicans launch bid to force House vote on BDS | Christians United for Israel

WASHINGTON (JTA) — Republicans want to force a vote on a controversial bill meant to oppose the anti-Israel boycott.

The bill, which earlier this year passed the Senate, has been held up in part because the Democrats, who control the US House of Representatives, say it poses a threat to First Amendment free speech protections.

The bill would uphold the right of states to ban Israel boycotters from doing business with the states, and protect the states from lawsuits.

Same way that most conservatives have nothing to say regarding more erosion of US civil rights via the Patriot Act but at the very least I can call out the Democrats for voting in favor of it. I don't even see you doing that with Republicans. That's the hypocrisy of the right. In the end you always fall for the culture war because the right can never win it and don't pay attention to the class war you should be fighting.

 

[Lark]

Well, I've heard so called left wing and secular beliefs, or more specifically American liberalism, described as religion, mental illness, disorder, delusion.

I'm getting a sense that the name calling allows an avoidance of discussing actual issues or policies.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Well, I've heard so called left wing and secular beliefs, or more specifically American liberalism, described as religion, mental illness, disorder, delusion.

I'm getting a sense that the name calling allows an avoidance of discussing actual issues or policies.

The chief explanation for why police brutality is a problem that I've heard them provide is that cities are run by "Democrat mayors." Given that, I think you may be right.

( Certainly the city governments play a role, but that description betrays about the most superficial level of understanding possible. They haven't taken me up on any of the sources I've provided explaining things in more depth, either. I sweetened the pot by saying (truthfully) there was a lot of dirt on the "Democrat party" in the article, but they refused to bite. I guess they don't want to have their faith in the belief that systemic racism is not a problem in the U.S. called into question. It makes sense coming from someone who was raised by Christian fundamentalist evangelicals, though.)

 

[Lark]

The chief explanation for why police brutality is a problem that I've heard them provide is that cities are run by "Democrat mayors." Given that, I think you may be right.

( Certainly the city governments play a role, but that description betrays about the most superficial level of understanding possible. They haven't taken me up on any of the sources I've provided explaining things in more depth, either. I sweetened the pot by saying (truthfully) there was a lot of dirt on the "Democrat party" in the article, but they refused to bite. I guess they don't want to have their faith in the belief that systemic racism is not a problem in the U.S. called into question. It makes sense coming from someone who was raised by Christian fundamentalist evangelicals, though.)

I think what you're describing is one aspect of the whole politics as sport and trivialization of politics and public life that reality TV generation has been complicit in.

Actually achieving any recognition of complexity, especially if it might require a response that's not just the same old same, isnt that welcome. Personally, I would not say that this is exclusive to the republicans, or conservatives or political right wing, it may be more recognizable to liberals or in a liberal society as being a trait of those persons but I see it in left wing, more specifically liberal, causes too.

I think flat affect vs. exaggerated/phony affect can be part of this too, on a more character/personality traits level too.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

I lean Left, but I can venture one criticism. There is a component on the Left (not everyone, but a segment of it) that has all the theory right, clear about ethics and principles in idea space, but the practice of their life is at odds with it. It's mostly the wealthy Left, but not all of them.

There are groups that are clearly against political inequality and it's great, but then they are stingy to pay workers, treat servers with criticism and complaining, and behave in a way to ensure their social privilege and dominance. This split between idea space and concrete space drives me absolutely crazy in dealing with people. You can't talk it out because the talk is already perfect. The behavior remains. I guess it's the way to have your cake and eat it too.

People who have experience being disadvantaged tend to have more literal empathy and consistency perhaps. My point is that there is an issue of hypocrisy present when a power structure/system is fighting for the underdog, but still led by those most privileged individuals. The Left will be morally consistent when its leaders are from the working classes and minorities.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

"To be deeply loved by someone gives you strength, to love someone deeply gives you courage."

Im a universalist myself, which I suppose would include any postulates of wisdom that might emerge from the secular leftism religion too. "No justice no peace" seems to have some macro resonance.

And I was persecuted as an outlier most of my young adulthood from fundamentalist Christian authoritarian types, often in "gang up on me" scenarios. It's from those experiences that I began noticing similar patterns from the cultural left, and I'm not surprised other people are picking up on it after George Floyd.

I've got not love for the gold star atheists either. Many are as narrow minded as the uberevangelists. One should question their beliefs, and they should also understand their lack of beliefs and be able to adequately justify them without stepping on others' toes or being a dick about it. I prefer agnosticism. Certainty in either direction doesn't seem logical to me because there's still missing blocks of information on the universe. I have flirted with several religions from Judaism to Buddhism and even evangelist Christianity, but no matter what, I think the agnosticism never left me. Just as I could never call myself a pure atheist.


***
The cancel culture I am alarmed by. I have no patience for ideological purity testing of any kind, and holding the past to current moral standards can be useful but we have to be careful what we're aiming at and that we don't ignore the entire past culture's complicity in past actions when singling out specific infdividuals as retroactive offenders

 

[anticlimatic]

I've got not love for the gold star atheists either. Many are as narrow minded as the uberevangelists. One should question their beliefs, and they should also understand their lack of beliefs and be able to adequately justify them without stepping on others' toes or being a dick about it. I prefer agnosticism. Certainty in either direction doesn't seem logical to me because there's still missing blocks of information on the universe. I have flirted with several religions from Judaism to Buddhism and even evangelist Christianity, but no matter what, I think the agnosticism never left me. Just as I could never call myself a pure atheist. *** The cancel culture I am alarmed by. I have no patience for ideological purity testing of any kind, and holding the past to current moral standards can be useful but we have to be careful what we're aiming at and that we don't ignore the entire past culture's complicity in past actions when singling out specific infdividuals as retroactive offenders

Most of the people targeted by cancel culture tend to be on the left, oddly enough. I don't hear of too many right wing people being canceled (at least successfully), so from my perspective it's objectively alarming but not really something I'd personally be concerned about. It seems like an effort to consolidate the "fractured kingdoms" of the left into a more unified body, but why would anybody want unity through authoritarianism? Even if it was achieved, is that a movement or system anyone would want to live under? A system, like in China, where the government will take your life away for the crime of saying (or having ever said) the wrong thing?

 

[Virtual ghost]

Secular leftism is a value system. Not every value system is a religion.


These is the logic on the issue towards my local definitions.

 

[ceecee]

I've got not love for the gold star atheists either. Many are as narrow minded as the uberevangelists. One should question their beliefs, and they should also understand their lack of beliefs and be able to adequately justify them without stepping on others' toes or being a dick about it. I prefer agnosticism. Certainty in either direction doesn't seem logical to me because there's still missing blocks of information on the universe. I have flirted with several religions from Judaism to Buddhism and even evangelist Christianity, but no matter what, I think the agnosticism never left me. Just as I could never call myself a pure atheist.


***
The cancel culture I am alarmed by. I have no patience for ideological purity testing of any kind, and holding the past to current moral standards can be useful but we have to be careful what we're aiming at and that we don't ignore the entire past culture's complicity in past actions when singling out specific infdividuals as retroactive offenders

Obviously canceling people like Bill Cosby or Harvey Weinstein now for past actions isn't really canceling to me. Charging and prosecuting predators years after the fact shouldn't be happening but women were and still are frequently not acknowledged and not taken seriously, that's how it ends up being retroactive in a lot of cases.

That said I think cancel culture arose from the fact that things like this are not acknowledged and not taken seriously but has since flown off the rails. It's alarming and I don't like the assaults on constitutional rights such as freedom of speech but to me there is a difference between canceling Debra Messing for simply being ignorant and out of touch;

Why Debra Messing Attack On Nina Turner Backfired

and canceling a CEO that told a family ieating their dinner in a resturant;

“Trump’s gonna f— you,” as he stood up to leave, followed by “You f—— need to leave! You f—— Asian piece of s—!”

‘My Behavior In The Video Is Appalling’; Tech CEO Michael Lofthouse Captured In Video Berating Asian Family – CBS San Francisco

Although I think my favorite is from this morning where Dinesh D'Souza is wondering why the statues of LBJ haven't been torn down and his legacy canceled. That's more of the conversation on Twitter but here is a story regarding it..

Dinesh D'Souza suggests knocking down statues of former U.S. presidents Wilson, FDR and LBJ - Washington Times

Then he seemed shocked to learn LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act into law. He is also stunned to learn that the Dems and Republicans flipped ideologies about the same time so it's more humorous to me when a ex-felon poser says what.

Canceling is also not the same as deplatforming. Constitutional rights are not being violated when Pay Pal bans a shitposting misogynistic fascist from their service or You Tube says GTFO. That's the free market baby!

Most of the people targeted by cancel culture tend to be on the left, oddly enough. I don't hear of too many right wing people being canceled (at least successfully), so from my perspective it's objectively alarming but not really something I'd personally be concerned about. It seems like an effort to consolidate the "fractured kingdoms" of the left into a more unified body, but why would anybody want unity through authoritarianism? Even if it was achieved, is that a movement or system anyone would want to live under? A system, like in China, where the government will take your life away for the crime of saying (or having ever said) the wrong thing?

This is not a left or right issue (as long as no one on the right gets canceled for you people) but I notice that the people who are chanting that message (that is IS a left or right issue) loudly are almost always right wing conservatives and their media, oddly enough. When you say it doesn't concern me because it isn't happening to me, that just makes you look like a piece of trash. Maybe you could remember that when you wonder why people don't treat you with the respect you feel you deserve.

Equating someone like Stefan Molyneux getting deplatformed with the Chinese authoritarian regime and their attacks on human rights is insane. It's also about 2 steps ahead of Trump and if people don't believe that, take a look at what the attorney general of the United States is attempting this morning.

It's also comical to me that China has replaced Russia as the global boogieman for many conservatives and right wingers, like Russia is all of a sudden a shining beacon of freedom and liberty.

 

[anticlimatic]

Obviously canceling people like Bill Cosby or Harvey Weinstein now for past actions isn't really canceling to me. Charging and prosecuting predators years after the fact shouldn't be happening but women were and still are frequently not acknowledged and not taken seriously, that's how it ends up being retroactive in a lot of cases. That said I think cancel culture arose from the fact that things like this are not acknowledged and not taken seriously but has since flown off the rails. It's alarming and I don't like the assaults on constitutional rights such as freedom of speech but to me there is a difference between canceling Debra Messing for simply being ignorant and out of touch; Why Debra Messing Attack On Nina Turner Backfired and canceling a CEO that told a family ieating their dinner in a resturant; "Trump's gonna f— you," as he stood up to leave, followed by "You f—— need to leave! You f—— Asian piece of s—!" 'My Behavior In The Video Is Appalling'; Tech CEO Michael Lofthouse Captured In Video Berating Asian Family – CBS San Francisco Although I think my favorite is from this morning where Dinesh D'Souza is wondering why the statues of LBJ haven't been torn down and his legacy canceled. That's more of the conversation on Twitter but here is a story regarding it.. Dinesh D'Souza suggests knocking down statues of former U.S. presidents Wilson, FDR and LBJ - Washington Times Then he seemed shocked to learn LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act into law. He is also stunned to learn that the Dems and Republicans flipped ideologies about the same time so it's more humorous to me when a ex-felon poser says what. Canceling is also not the same as deplatforming. Constitutional rights are not being violated when Pay Pal bans a shitposting misogynistic fascist from their service or You Tube says GTFO. That's the free market baby! This is not a left or right issue (as long as no one on the right gets canceled for you people) but I notice that the people who are chanting that message (that is IS a left or right issue) loudly are almost always right wing conservatives and their media, oddly enough. When you say it doesn't concern me because it isn't happening to me, that just makes you look like a piece of trash. Maybe you could remember that when you wonder why people don't treat you with the respect you feel you deserve. Equating someone like Stefan Molyneux getting deplatformed with the Chinese authoritarian regime and their attacks on human rights is insane. It's also about 2 steps ahead of Trump and if people don't believe that, take a look at what the attorney general of the United States is attempting this morning. It's also comical to me that China has replaced Russia as the global boogieman for many conservatives and right wingers, like Russia is all of a sudden a shining beacon of freedom and liberty.

Let me explain some basic semantics for you, dear. When I say something is objectively alarming, but not a direct concern for myself (aka subjectively alarming), I am expressing alarm despite the fact that it is not directly and immediately for my own sake. In other words it is both empathetic alarm for others, and a broader sense of alarm for the complete system as a whole for the direction it is heading. Just something to keep in mind while you desperately try rooting out reasons to call me names, something you strive for in just about every unsolicited response of yours that comes my way. It makes you look juvenile to any sane observer and undermines your own position. Just thought you should know.

China is just used as an easy example of an authoritarian system. It's not conservative's fault that radicals want to emulate it.

 

[Lark]

It could be late in the thread to be saying so what so what if it is a religion?

 

[ceecee]

Let me explain some basic semantics for you, dear. When I say something is objectively alarming, but not a direct concern for myself (aka subjectively alarming), I am expressing alarm despite the fact that it is not directly and immediately for my own sake. In other words it is both empathetic alarm for others, and a broader sense of alarm for the complete system as a whole for the direction it is heading. Just something to keep in mind while you desperately try rooting out reasons to call me names, something you strive for in just about every unsolicited response of yours that comes my way. It makes you look juvenile to any sane observer and undermines your own position. Just thought you should know.

China is just used as an easy example of an authoritarian system. It's not conservstives fault that radicals want to emulate it.

I love watching you backtrack on your own words in an attempt to explain yourself in some vague, yet supercilious tone about what you assume others observe. And again, there is an ignore feature you could employ if things are getting that difficult for you to handle.

 

[anticlimatic]

I love watching you backtrack on your own words in an attempt to explain yourself in some vague, yet supercilious tone about what you assume others observe. And again, there is an ignore feature you could employ if things are getting that difficult for you to handle.

I use the ignore feature here and there, but for the most part your posts crack me up, so there is some intrinsic value. For instance, every time you wildly mischaracterize something I say, and I take the time to explain the actual meaning to you, you always accuse me of "back tracking" as though you somehow have a better idea of what I meant to say than I do- because your brain can't even conceive for a second that you might have been wrong about something. To me that's hilarious.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

It could be late in the thread to be saying so what so what if it is a religion?

I found it funny that he used that on me in another thread because my own relationship to religion is really complicated (and I've accepted that most people won't understand it). He doesn't know or understand me at all if he thinks that would be an effective attack. He probably didn't come up with that line on his own, though, and probably got it from somewhere else, which is why he assumes he can use it on anyone he disagrees with.

To me a lot of the humor is that he can't see how cultish the behavior of him and his comrades really is.

In my experience, really vocal atheists tend to have lots of blind spots in their belief systems and
don't apply the same levels of critical thinking to as they do with holy scripture. They do tend to put that fervor into whatever their political system is, and this seems to be true if they are on the right as well as the left.

At least those on the left have something behind their belief system other than fear (which is a charitable reading of the right as it exists in this point time).

As a general rule of thumb, it is a pet peeve of mine when people who spend a lot of time criticizing other people as deluded fools behave like deluded fools themselves.

 

[anticlimatic]

It could be late in the thread to be saying so what so what if it is a religion?

Then organizations aught to be getting tax exempt status, among other things.

Secular leftism is a value system. Not every value system is a religion.

But is every religion a value system?

 

[Virtual ghost]

But is every religion a value system?

I would say "yes".

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I use the ignore feature here and there.

Against me?

 

[anticlimatic]

Against me?

No.