Should the Separation of Church and State Apply to Irrational, Religiously-held Liberal Beliefs? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#14792622
One of the arguments supporting a separation of church and state is that unprovable beliefs should not benefit from government subsidy or endorsement.

Even though contemporary leftism doesn't explicitly identify itself as a religion, it contains many beliefs that are either fundamentally unprovable or which have been disproven, or which blatantly contradict each other, yet liberals follow them at least as closely (and behave just as extremely as a result) as some people do when following their religion. To name just a few examples:

1. A belief in the existence of 47 [sic] genders.
2. A belief in the "gender wage gap" which has not only been thoroughly discredited for decades, it also makes little sense for someone to believe in a "wage gape" if they also believe that gender is an insignificant social construct.
3. A belief that a double standard is warranted between Christians and Muslims, the latter being allowed to explicitly do what is forbidden to Christians (including sidestepping the separation between church and state) with no provably rational justification.

I could go on but I think my point is clear. Liberalism is treated by many of its adherents like a religion, even though its foundational arguments are equally impossible to prove or may have been disproven. The fact that some variety exists between the extreme forms of liberalism is not so different from the variety that exists between different religious groups that identify by similar names. Liberalism is often a religion in everything but name and yet it not only sidesteps the separation between church and state, it receives massive government subsidy and endorsement.

This also may be part of why liberalism generally has the upper hand over western "conservatism"; Christianity is in many ways just another philosophy but it is a banned philosophy that undergirds many conservative groups, whereas the by now deeply religious philosophy of western liberalism that undergirds liberal parties is not banned but is subsidized and endorsed. This is not a fair situation.
#14795701
To use comparative constitutional history to illustrate...

...when Mexico declared independence from Spain, it didn't follow the United States' precedent of separation of Church and State in its first constitution. It rejected the liberal monarchy that followed Napoleon's control of Spain. Instead, it insisted on believing in traditional values on maintaining a civil society.

I'm not saying this is good, but there are many liberal multiculturalists in the United States who will clamor about reparations including returning land to Mexico and tying that land to reparations to African-Americans due to how the Texan Revolution was originally motivated by slavery.

You can't have it both ways unless you're deliberately trying to be a hypocrite which leads to self-destruction over the long-term.

In fact, the origin of Progressivism in the United States coincided with intervening in Mexico's affairs during Taft's administration, an intervention that preceded the Cristero War in Mexico where Catholics were oppressed, Catholics who opposed slavery, Catholics who embraced Native Americans, Catholics who were opposed by Protestants in the United States who believed Manifest Destiny was their calling and used it to motivate the original Mexican-American War after the Texan Revolution.

Liberalism has become a movement of deliberate contradictions and nonsense just for the sake of screwing around. It's a real shame because in the real world, people treat it as childish and don't give it the credit it deserves. If you try to be a serious liberal, you're just dismissed from being compared to this nonsense.
#14795726
I've read the OP a few times, and I'm not sure what the proposal is.

The state doesn't specifically endorse what you're calling, "liberalism," as a creed.

If you mean that liberals shouldn't run for office, I'm not sure that you really understand what the First Amendment says...
#14795873
The Immortal Goon wrote:I've read the OP a few times, and I'm not sure what the proposal is.

It's an admission that Hong Wu lives in a fantasy world with no connection to reality.

Hong Wu wrote:This also may be part of why liberalism generally has the upper hand over western "conservatism"; Christianity is in many ways just another philosophy but it is a banned philosophy that undergirds many conservative groups, whereas the by now deeply religious philosophy of western liberalism that undergirds liberal parties is not banned but is subsidized and endorsed.

This is just fiction. He is imagining some 'western' culture in which Christianity is banned. For once, I think this is not just a simple persecution complex, because I think Hong Wu doesn't claim to be Christian himself. But he has allied himself with the American Christian Right so tightly that he now believes in their claims of oppression as if it's an accepted fact.

It's probably best to interpret the OP as: "what can I say that will annoy liberals? Oh, I think they hate religion (except Islam, which I am convinced they love - since I hate it, and I hate liberals, it must make sense that they love it), so I will accuse them of being a religion. That will really make them feel bad. Do I have any idea of what a religion is? No, not really, but that hasn't stopped me before. Do I have an idea of what liberalism is? No, but, again, who cares? I need to strike a blow against liberals, because I don't think liberty is a good idea. Someone told me it wasn't. What have I read online? I'll take something silly, and pretend it is a universal tenet of liberalism. Even better, use a list of 3 things. Then my argument will look really professional. Professionals use lists of 3 all the time. It doesn't matter if the things are connected, or if I have any evidence to show if they are true, or liberals believe them. Just say any old shit, and my work will be done."
#14795918
The first amendment was cast with the bloody wars of religion which raged across Europe for centuries in mind. The founders (though they be traitors to the crown and therefore villainous scum that should have hung for the crows to feast on) hoped to avoid all that by making their newborn state as neutral as can be on that conflict. It wasn't really true secularism though, certainly not atheism, as the presumption was that everyone was a Christian just of different mutually hostile strains that they hoped would play nice with each other if none had the privilege and power of being a state religion. Fast forward three centuries and the idea has morphed, or its common interpretation, into something a lot closer to true secularism.

There is certainly something about this new kind of "liberalism" which whiffs of religion especially of the fanatical kind even while it lacks the supernatural decoration of traditional religions. The taint of marxism is in the mix of this new kind of "liberalism" so that may be the origin of the religiosity. There again when the scientists killed the gods they did not also kill the priestly mind that had crafted them. What happens to those with a disposition towards religiosity when they have conceded the death of the gods? Are they converted to scientist or do they adapt, like a virus to an anti-body, a new religion out of and camoflaged as secularism? A religion that does not curl up and die, like a slug to salt, quite so readily to the touch of science. Has it become something equivalent to a state religion though? If it has then yes the 1st amendment might be leveled against it.
#14795971
SolarCross wrote:There is certainly something about this new kind of "liberalism" which whiffs of religion especially of the fanatical kind

What 'something' are you talking about? What is 'fanatical' about liberalism, which is, by definition, about allowing people more personal freedom? The word 'religion' comes from the Latin for 'bind'; it's about binding people to a set of rules, which means less personal freedom. Conservatives who say people should stick to traditional ways of life are the ones who are closer to a secular 'religious' outlook.

So, what, specifically, do you see as 'fanatical' or 'religious' in liberalism?
#14796001
Prosthetic Conscience wrote:What 'something' are you talking about? What is 'fanatical' about liberalism, which is, by definition, about allowing people more personal freedom? The word 'religion' comes from the Latin for 'bind'; it's about binding people to a set of rules, which means less personal freedom. Conservatives who say people should stick to traditional ways of life are the ones who are closer to a secular 'religious' outlook.

So, what, specifically, do you see as 'fanatical' or 'religious' in liberalism?


First off I think we need to be clear that liberalism as in classical liberalism is as different from liberalism as in left-liberalism or multi-culturalism or social justice liberalism as the sun is from the moon. Classical liberalism was all about personal freedom but left-liberalism has the opposite intent. We are speaking here of the latter "liberalism".

The "bind" of religion is not so much in the rules, civilised life is all about rules and everyone has them, the bind is in the primary beliefs and it is to these that the religious mind is bound. From the beliefs flow the rules.

What marks a religious belief from a scientific hypothesis?

- A religious belief is held to be true without substantive or indeed any evidence. It will often be held to be true even in defiance of evidence that explicitly refutes it.
- A scientific hypothesis is only provisionally held to be true and only for the purposes of guiding the gathering of evidence against which to test the hypothesis.

- A religious belief is used as measure of allegiance. Unbelievers are enemies, believers are friends.
- A scientific hypothesis is not used this way.

With this in mind how many of these left-liberal tropes are beliefs or hypothesis?

The first three from Hong Wu's OP:
1. A belief in the existence of 47 [sic] genders.
2. A belief in the "gender wage gap" which has not only been thoroughly discredited for decades, it also makes little sense for someone to believe in a "wage gape" if they also believe that gender is an insignificant social construct.
3. A belief that a double standard is warranted between Christians and Muslims, the latter being allowed to explicitly do what is forbidden to Christians (including sidestepping the separation between church and state) with no provably rational justification.


4. A belief that differences in quality are, for want of a better word, evil, that they don't exist and only appear to exist because of the wrongful beliefs of unbelievers. These unbelievers are denounced as racists, sexists, etc. (heretics essentially).

5. A belief (actually contradictory to belief 4) that white people particularly evil unless they happen to be also be left-liberals.

6. A belief (actually contradictory to belief 4) that men are particularly evil unless they happen to also be something other than white.

7. A belief in the sins of the fathers, that people are culpable for the assumed misdeeds of their ancestors (unless of of course the ancestors are non-white or female.) This sin can be washed away by having the correct beliefs.

That will do for now.
#14796012
Pants-of-dog wrote:This is the 2738492837648th thread where conservatives base complicated theories on their misunderstanding of progressive beliefs and causes.

It's like you guys enjoy writing lists that show how badly wrong you are.


Well I am an unbeliever and therefore an enemy to you so of course you must dismiss my perceptions as heresy. What do you say when a one of your own, a true believer (from montreal no less), has seen the light enough to say much the same thing? Read this and weep:

Everything is problematic - My journey into the centre of a dark political world, and how I escaped
#14796013
SolarCross wrote:Well I am an unbeliever and therefore an enemy to you so of course you must dismiss my perceptions as heresy. What do you say when a one of your own, a true believer (from montreal no less), has seen the light enough to say much the same thing? Read this and weep:

Everything is problematic - My journey into the centre of a dark political world, and how I escaped


I highly doubt that the linked site will magically make your misconceptions about progressive causes true.
#14796020
Again, even if we were to accept the feeling-oriented definition of liberalism made up by people in this thread, and then accept that political ideology is the same as religious dogma, this still has nothing to do with the First Amendment or how the First Amendment is applied. The First Amendment says such a religion would be fine:

First Amendment wrote:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof


I can't think of any reason for this thread existing. Is it supposed to be a safe place for sad feelings?
#14796023
SolarCross wrote:You haven't read it yet.


I have read most of it. I doubt you have.

None of it supports your incredibly wrong list of seven mistakes about progressive beliefs.

Also, I find it interesting that you think that one person's experiences at McGill somehow are representative of all progressive thought.
#14796072
SolarCross wrote:First off I think we need to be clear that liberalism as in classical liberalism is as different from liberalism as in left-liberalism or multi-culturalism or social justice liberalism as the sun is from the moon. Classical liberalism was all about personal freedom but left-liberalism has the opposite intent.

You are wrong. Liberalism has, for instance, been strongly supportive of civil rights, and LGBT equality. And it supports a capitalist system, but with a social safety net.

What marks a religious belief from a scientific hypothesis?

Why ask this? The world is not divided into "science" and "religion" and nothing else. It might be said that liberalism supports universal healthcare, and American conservatism does not, but that does not mean that one of those viewpoints is 'scientific' and the other 'religious'.

With this in mind how many of these left-liberal tropes are beliefs or hypothesis?

The first three from Hong Wu's OP:
1. A belief in the existence of 47 [sic] genders.

This is not a liberal belief. It is a strawman. There may be someone who believes this, and they may class themselves as a liberal, but it is not a generally held view among liberals.

2. A belief in the "gender wage gap" which has not only been thoroughly discredited for decades, it also makes little sense for someone to believe in a "wage gape" if they also believe that gender is an insignificant social construct.

It has not been 'discredited'. All research shows a gender wage gap. See for instance, women earning 84% to 98% of men for the same roles: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jwebb/2016 ... 46bcf84709

3. A belief that a double standard is warranted between Christians and Muslims, the latter being allowed to explicitly do what is forbidden to Christians (including sidestepping the separation between church and state) with no provably rational justification.

Another strawman. In what way are Muslims being explicitly allowed to sidestep the separation between church and state, in a way that Christians are not? (Remember, that's an American rule, so you need to provide an answer from the USA. In other countries, eg the UK, there can be state religions - the Church of England, for instance, with its bishops in the House of Lords).

4. A belief that differences in quality are, for want of a better word, evil, that they don't exist and only appear to exist because of the wrongful beliefs of unbelievers. These unbelievers are denounced as racists, sexists, etc. (heretics essentially).

5. A belief (actually contradictory to belief 4) that white people particularly evil unless they happen to be also be left-liberals.

6. A belief (actually contradictory to belief 4) that men are particularly evil unless they happen to also be something other than white.

7. A belief in the sins of the fathers, that people are culpable for the assumed misdeeds of their ancestors (unless of of course the ancestors are non-white or female.) This sin can be washed away by having the correct beliefs.

These are all strawmen. You are taking the wild imaginings of right wing discussions and pretending they are actually part of liberal 'beliefs'.

If you actually wanted to talk about the real beliefs or goals of liberalism - like equality in law, or minimum standards of health and education regardless of ability to pay - it'd be worth a discussion. You can discuss whether these are worth the taxes that are needed to pay for them. But you're just ignoring what liberalism is, in favour of a caricature that you enjoy taking potshots at.
#14796085
Even though contemporary leftism doesn't explicitly identify itself as a religion, it contains many beliefs that are either fundamentally unprovable or which have been disproven, or which blatantly contradict each other, yet liberals follow them at least as closely (and behave just as extremely as a result) as some people do when following their religion.


Are we all sad that we didn't stop reading there.


I have seen some stupidity from the right but this load of nonsense is right up there.

I am a conservative and wish to distance myself from anyone who would try to justify such a nonsensical notion.

I should pause to say that all three examples are laughable. I know a lot of liberals/progressives and none of them would recognize any of these.

While we are discussing this though, we should all remember that all conservatives believe the world was made in 6 days and Jonah lived in a whale for three days.
#14796095
Okay.

But, not to be all legalistic, but what does any of this have to do with the First Amendment, which specifically dictates not to be involved in this shit?

I've been over and over this postmodern feeling-mongering in which the right is engaged, and this seems to be yet another example. The actual text, the law, the theory doesn't seem to matter as much as the individual that wrote the OP's feelings.

The Constitution is an Enlightenment Era construction specifically designed to take precious feelings out of the equation. I have seen no reason to double-reverse the constitution to coincide with the many leaps-of-logic here.
#14796104
The Immortal Goon wrote:Okay.

But, not to be all legalistic, but what does any of this have to do with the First Amendment, which specifically dictates not to be involved in this shit?

I've been over and over this postmodern feeling-mongering in which the right is engaged, and this seems to be yet another example. The actual text, the law, the theory doesn't seem to matter as much as the individual that wrote the OP's feelings.

The Constitution is an Enlightenment Era construction specifically designed to take precious feelings out of the equation. I have seen no reason to double-reverse the constitution to coincide with the many leaps-of-logic here.


Read As Written the 1st amendment is all about governance taking itself out of inter-christian civil war by avoiding showing favouritism to one side or the other, in particular by avoiding making one particular sect a state religion. You agree yes?

Read As Intended the 1st amendment is about governance taking itself out of a tribal civil war by avoiding showing favouritism to one side or the other, the tribes in the context of the times being Catholics vs Protestants and their various sub varieties.

In the context of our times in America the warring tribes are different tribes to those times: now they are the Blue Church of Latte slurpers and the Red Church of Nascar racers.

The 1st amendment doesn't need to change but a looser interpretation might be called for if it is the case that one of these tribes is in danger of dominating the political landscape to the point of making itself the state religion (or tribe), to become the hutus to other's tutsi. I guess many of the pew sitters of the Red Church believed that has been increasingly happening for the Blue Church since the 60s at least but then again the Trump victory very well may suggest a turning point for them. Either way neither tribe actually has total dominance since both tribes get their political representatives quite often enough. Also it must be said the "warring" is mostly rhetorical virtue signalling on both sides with exceedingly little of the violence that wise governors would wish to avoid in their subjects at least relative to the hotter parts of the Europe's wars of religion which inspired the 1st amendment in the first place.

As a disclaimer I am a foreigner to this fight, I belong to neither tribe.

I've noticed a trend wherein "New Right"[…]

No Repeal of Obamacare

You do realize that while making this monumentall[…]

Meanwhile back at the adult day care center: Pres[…]

How does that work avoiding the subscription wall[…]