Is Secular Leftism A Religion?

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

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.

Cosby and CK earned their outcomes. Franken did not.

 

[Lark]

Cosby and CK earned their outcomes. Franken did not.

I know about the first two, I didnt hear about the later, I did enjoy the books he's written that made it to the UK.

 

[ceecee]

Cosby and CK earned their outcomes. Franken did not.

Agree, absolutely.

 

[anticlimatic]

Still pretty impressed with myself for calling this over a year ago.

 

[Lark]

Still pretty impressed with myself for calling this over a year ago.

Can you tell me more about this?

 

[Virtual ghost]

Still pretty impressed with myself for calling this over a year ago.

Stupid question: what makes you think that all supposedly secular people in those pictures are secular instead of religious ?

 

[Lark]

Stupid question: what makes you think that all supposedly secular people in those pictures are secular instead of religious ?

The guys in the first pic are a band of anti-establishment rebels with a revisionist understanding of their traditional beliefs.

Dont know what the other two pics are about but I suspect this could be some sort of autistic error on the part of the poster, these things look the same and therefore are the same thing kind of thing.

With the spread of these kinds of neurotypical presentations we're going to see more of this sort of mindset. How quickly it seems to go viral online and offline is about more than the spread of neurotypical types though.

 

[Virtual ghost]

The guys in the first pic are a band of anti-establishment rebels with a revisionist understanding of their traditional beliefs.

Dont know what the other two pics are about but I suspect this could be some sort of autistic error on the part of the poster, these things look the same and therefore are the same thing kind of thing.

With the spread of these kinds of neurotypical presentations we're going to see more of this sort of mindset. How quickly it seems to go viral online and offline is about more than the spread of neurotypical types though.

Well, on the second one there could be some secular people in the mix but overall I don't see the clear case. However US is generally religious and full of various social gestures, so I presume that secular people there aren't super similar to those in some other countries.

 

[anticlimatic]

Stupid question: what makes you think that all supposedly secular people in those pictures are secular instead of religious ?

Those are photos of fundamentalist Christians juxtaposed with photos of people in the contemporary woke left- either because they are actual believers, or because they are being swept up in the culture and need that cultural/religious validatation, the way some people used to pretend to be religious back when Christianity was the religious cultural norm.

But to answer your question, I don't think anyone in any of the photos I posted is secular (clearly). My original point is not that secular = religion, but that religion will arise from secular systems if there is no other religion available to a large demographic of people within those systems. Christianity has been mostly off limits to the secular left in America due to decades of disparaging it and needing to be accepted by their other secular left peers.

Meaning itself arises from inheritly meaningless elements (via recursion and self reference) so it should surprise no one that religion can arise from inheritly non-religious elements through much the same process.

 

[Lark]

Well, on the second one there could be some secular people in the mix but overall I don't see the clear case. However US is generally religious and full of various social gestures, so I presume that secular people there aren't super similar to those in some other countries.

Well I'd say that a lot of people who're nominally secular could still bare the stamp of whatever religious tradition they grew up with or that is popular in their community.

Bertrand Russell would talk about there being protestant or roman catholic atheists when he wrote on the topic of atheism and I'd say its still relevant even if secularism may not mean atheism per se but just keeping your religion private or accepting/valuing pluralism.

Like I've met a lot of people whose communication style resembled so much that of their church or alternatively that they trusted or valued individuals who communicated in a similar style to the pastors or priests or whatever or they were trying to adopt the hallmarks or mannerism or style on any occasion they could as to them it was a hallmark of intelligence (which may not be shared by anyone else).

I'm not sure what the secular equivalents of that sort of thing is, I think maybe someone mentioned "up talk" one day.

Although while people can show these hallmarks and stuff I dont think people are nothing but dupes walking around awaiting brainwashing or cues from someone or other. Which I think is typical of a lot of the casual narcissism exhibited by the rich conservative set. Privilege is as privilege does.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Bertrand Russell would talk about there being protestant or roman catholic atheists when he wrote on the topic of atheism and I'd say its still relevant even if secularism may not mean atheism per se but just keeping your religion private or accepting/valuing pluralism. .

Russell said that? I've thought the same thing. I've noticed that the loudest and fervent atheists, for instance, are often ex-evangelical fundamentalists.

 

[Lark]

Russell said that? I've thought the same thing. I've noticed that the loudest and fervent atheists, for instance, are often ex-evangelical fundamentalists.

Ha! yeah, I've definitely noticed that myself, Victor Frankl talked about an idea about spirituality being a drive and its repression being an issue for some people, I tend to think that the repression of spirituality is a feature in both evangelism, of whatever sort, and sometimes zealotry remains part of the underlying character structure when it former channel of its abandoned.

Russell's ideas are a little different because he lived long before the kinds of evangelism that still linger only in the US (some quarters in NI are busy trying to import it from the US though).

I think he talks about generosity and parsimony which were associated with the different communities at the time, there used to be many more religious writers back then, CS Lewis (former atheist), Hilarie Belloc and GK Chesterton (both catholics), Orwell even wrote about them people popular as one of competing political ideologies between the wars.

 

[anticlimatic]

The New Religion Of The Woke Left Is A Faith Without Atonement

Much has been made of how the “woke” left’s political program resembles a new religion. Columbia University linguist John McWhorter made the point in his discussion with evolutionary biologist Bret Weinstein, James Lindsay describes how “wokeness” resembles a cult, and Hans Fiene wrote a satirical article in The Federalist describing the religious program in the “Cathedral of Blessed Wokery.”

The woke Left’s program does seem to resemble a religion. This should not, however, be all that surprising to us. Jonathan Haidt points out how humans use sacred ideas, rituals, and symbols as unifying forces that allow us to participate in large scale societies. Most non-insect social creatures participate in small social networks of very close kin. Insects such as bees may have large scale societies, but they’re all essentially siblings and share a very high percentage of genetic material.

So, how is the Woke Left similar to a religion? Well, even without a supernatural element, it has all the trappings of one. It has a core set of beliefs that you cannot question and remain in the tribe with myths that aren’t subjected to normal academic scrutiny (the 1619 Project); it has sacred texts (White Fragility), its idea of original sin (being born white and/or male), rituals (including self-flagellation), symbols, heretics (hello, JK Rowling), and de facto priests and prophets to enlighten and then initiate us into this new religion. All will be shown a new way of viewing everything about the world, and we must adopt this without caveats or questions.

 

[Lark]

What holds true of religions holds true for faith in its secular form... ideas... deteriorate... once they are not based upon the productive experience of each individual - Eric Fromm, Man For Himself, Faith as a Character Trait, Problems of Humanistic Ethics.

 

[Lark]

The New Religion Of The Woke Left Is A Faith Without Atonement

I'm not sure how much the so called woke left actually exists and how much of it is a bogey or figment of the right wing's imagination.

The fact that some people conform well to the stereotypes of that bogey comes as no surprise, we live in a highly conservative society and conservatives are able to define opposition, often in ways that the same opposition will then accept as actually true about themselves.

 

[ceecee]

I've heard of Dispensational Premillennialism but I had not seen it applied in this way. Fox News overdoses have it just as much as MSNBC does.

When the news becomes religion - Columbia Journalism Review

QAnon does this in a manner that is startlingly similar to a news-obsessed strain of Christian theology called premillennial dispensationalism, which takes metaphorical passages in the Bible and tries to decode them into both individual prophecies that refer directly to current events, as well as a larger meta-prophecy ending in the Rapture of believers to heaven, the coming of the Antichrist, and the battle of Armageddon.

“QAnon is always sucking in new things that have happened,” says Will Sommer, a reporter for the Daily Beast who covers the far right. “There was a weird light a couple of years ago off the coast of Oregon, and people were like, ‘Oh, that was a missile trying to take down Air Force One as Trump flew to North Korea.’ ”

Dispensational Premillennialism: The Dispensationalist Era
| Christian History | Christianity Today

Unfortunately, the conservative right seems to be more prone to falling victim to these conspiracies like QAnon but crossed with Omega Kingdom Ministry charismatic Christianity, it appears even more attractive to a group already mixing religion into their politics for many years. I have yet to find a leftist QAnon subscriber but I know a couple moderate liberals that are pretty deep in it, including the religious aspect.

 

[Lark]

I've heard of Dispensational Premillennialism but I had not seen it applied in this way. Fox News overdoses have it just as much as MSNBC does.

When the news becomes religion - Columbia Journalism Review



Dispensational Premillennialism: The Dispensationalist Era
| Christian History | Christianity Today

Unfortunately, the conservative right seems to be more prone to falling victim to these conspiracies like QAnon but crossed with Omega Kingdom Ministry charismatic Christianity, it appears even more attractive to a group already mixing religion into their politics for many years. I have yet to find a leftist QAnon subscriber but I know a couple moderate liberals that are pretty deep in it, including the religious aspect.

To be honest, whether liberals and conservatives choose to follow the faux messiah that QAnon is or not I think that, in the US particularly, the strength of (often unconscious or repressed) religiosity couldnt be in doubt.

Like the evangelical character of religion is what's important, all the developments form the days of just before the Carter administration, with stadium christianity, rise of tele-evangelism and evangelism per se.

Both US conservatism and liberalism are evangelical, they want to make converts, they want people to engage in "born again" like switch ups or discoveries of convictions which they will then be compelled to spread to others and associate/disassociate on that basis.

Its also all opinions, as in what you are thinking or feeling, there is not a terrible amount of quiet, private, compliance with a set of moral/ethical codes of conduct for the better of the self or others. Its all about I think this. Everyone should think this too. I'm going to cry it from the roof tops.

Like the strong, strong dislike I've got of most LBGT liberals and reactionary conservatives is that they really, really remind me of a certain kind of street preacher manic personality type.

 

[Maou]

I've already replied, but yes. If you can't see it, it is because you are designed that way. It is long speak for supporting anything these days.

 

[Burning Paradigm]

Forget about the merits or demerits of "woke" culture for a second. If the argument for secular leftism being a religion is its having dogmatic, unalterable beliefs (a premise I'll accept for argument's sake), then by that standard, how many institutions, organizations, ideologies, belief sets can be classified as "religion"? At that point, religion seems to lose any meaningful sense of the word. Groupthink is largely a negative for any society that values the free exchange and debate of ideas, but to conflate or term any subset of people engaged in groupthink as a "religion" is silly.

Also, define secular leftism. If your criticism of secular leftism is its adherence to "woke" ideology, I have to ask what do you think secular leftism is? Furthermore, "leftism" encompasses a wide swath of ideologies and worldviews? If you're calling it a religion, do you believe it to be a monolith? I don't think Bill Maher, for example, or Richard Dawkins would identify with the "woke" crowd, and they're just as much secular and just as much leftist. I don't think Bernie Sanders can be identified strongly with, idk, the Congress Party in India and both are secular and left-wing (the latter perhaps in name now only).

Just to be clear: I'm not denying certain issues brought up in this thread (I'm irritated with celebrity "woke"-ness, for example; it's quite riddled with hypocrisy). As someone who identifies with left-wing beliefs, I acknowledge the presence of group-think and performativeness on many swaths of our side. It's something we should be cognizant of; I'm just questioning where do you draw the line at calling something a religion? There are elements in religion that are common to human institutions as a whole; you can't go around and unironically call everything with some sort of consensus beliefs a religion.

 

[anticlimatic]

Forget about the merits or demerits of "woke" culture for a second. If the argument for secular leftism being a religion is its having dogmatic, unalterable beliefs (a premise I'll accept for argument's sake), then by that standard, how many institutions, organizations, ideologies, belief sets can be classified as "religion"? At that point, religion seems to lose any meaningful sense of the word. Groupthink is largely a negative for any society that values the free exchange and debate of ideas, but to conflate or term any subset of people engaged in groupthink as a "religion" is silly. Also, define secular leftism. If your criticism of secular leftism is its adherence to "woke" ideology, I have to ask what do you think secular leftism is? Furthermore, "leftism" encompasses a wide swath of ideologies and worldviews? If you're calling it a religion, do you believe it to be a monolith? I don't think Bill Maher, for example, or Richard Dawkins would identify with the "woke" crowd, and they're just as much secular and just as much leftist. I don't think Bernie Sanders can be identified strongly with, idk, the Congress Party in India and both are secular and left-wing (the latter perhaps in name now only). Just to be clear: I'm not denying certain issues brought up in this thread (I'm irritated with celebrity "woke"-ness, for example; it's quite riddled with hypocrisy). As someone who identifies with left-wing beliefs, I acknowledge the presence of group-think and performativeness on many swaths of our side. It's something we should be cognizant of; I'm just questioning where do you draw the line at calling something a religion? There are elements in religion that are common to human institutions as a whole; you can't go around and unironically call everything with some sort of consensus beliefs a religion.

Nice post!

I mostly made this thread for fun before the George Floyd thing got other people talking about it seriously, because as a Ti dom I'm an isomorphic thinker that has dealt with a lot of Christian types and really-into-politics types and noticed a metaphorical overlap in a lot of their language.


To graduate from ideology to religion there's a few benchmarks that need to be met I think. It has to be about unanswerable elements of the human condition. It needs an obsession with a contested history that someone wrote in a book. It needs leaps of faith to bridge data points. It needs a signature set of moral principals. It needs to constantly rehash and analyze its own perceived history. And it needs subjugation to some kind of higher power or cause.