Based on what I have read in the field of "religious studies", the term "religion" by no means has a universal definition. — darthbarracuda

Yes, there are almost as many definitions as there are scholars of religion. It's certainly the largest, most protracted dispute in the field. Finding the sweet spot, between the Scylla of a definition that is so broad that it includes too much, including that which is not normally considered religion, and the Charybdis of a definition that is so narrow that it leaves out much that seems intrinsically religious, is difficult indeed. Some scholars advocate abandoning the term "religion" altogether, but this just kicks the can down the road a bit further, as the proposed replacement terms are often even more vague than the word they are meant to replace.

I think it can be recognized to have meaning with respect to pre-modern and non-Western societies, but not in the sense of a Hegelian reification of the term, which would be ahistorical.

The concept of the soul is one of the most fundamental parts of most religious beliefs and it states that every human being has unquestionable value that cannot be measured. Therefore you cannot compare people using it and, as it is the only meaningful value, makes every person equal. — Jacykow

The concept of the soul is not found in all religions. And it's likely that what you're thinking of by "the concept of the soul" is not what religions that accept a concept of the soul mean by it.

The words "every" and "equal" sound pretty left leaning to me and the whole concept unites humanity in one group. — Jacykow

Just as the vegetative soul unites all plants. The equality here is metaphysical, not political. Besides, the right does acknowledge equality as a value, but it values a different type of it than the left does. The right values equality of opportunity while the left values equality of outcome, which are by no means the same thing. So your intuition is both vague and wrong.

Christianity was like that from the start — Πετροκότσυφας

I agree with you that it was. In fact, the opposite of what he suggested is true, I would argue. The Enlightenment was the birth of liberal Christianity and liberalizing tendencies in traditional Christianity. Doctrinal laxity is a new phenomenon while doctrinal rigidity is more traditional.

There are many of the 'religious left', including many Catholic social democrats and intellectuals. Jacques Maritain, neo-Thomist philosopher, and Raimundo Panikkar, distinguished scholar of comparative religon, are both of the religious left. Dorothy Day - Catholic unionist and agitator for women's rights. Many contributors to the Commonweal Magazine. The Dalai Lama has said (somewhat puzzlingly) that he's communist. There are doubtless thousands of other examples.

Perhaps my religion tells me I should do my best to feed the hungry, heal the sick, comfort the suffering, abstain from greed, masturbation, abortion, violence, exploitation, and so on.

It does not follow that I will be in favour of making all or any of these virtues compulsory. That I think we ought to do X does not mean that I think the government ought to do X or mandate X. Thus sincere Christians can agree on morality but disagree on politics. They can be liberal about sexual conduct, and prescriptive about economic conduct, or vice versa.

Jesus healed the sick, therefore the government should provide disability benefits and a free health service. There is something missing from this argument.

Disregarding the necessity of hierarchization the right believes it to be true.

If you take a materialists point of view there are no values apart from the ones you create. If you don't then this generalization is not about you since the stereotypical leftist is an atheist.

Great point, it seems obvious that values of theism and atheism are of minimal importance if you are doing politics. But someone had to come up with the idea that this division would make sense and apparently it does because is still stays strong.

My belief is that the respective parties view on religion is due to the people that support them. For example, Conservatives believe in maintaining the status quo, and for hundreds of years, religion and the family unit have been the core values in society. Liberals want change, and the direct opposite of holding religious beliefs is holding none. American politics, and western politics in general, is about herding as many easily convinced, ignorant, paranoid sugar junkies to your side. Taking strong stances on religion is a great way to pull at peoples emotions. That was the flaw in democracy I was referring to.

Can you give an example of a belief system that introduces the soul as something without an unquestionable value given to every person? I'm sure that this is a part of how the christian soul works.

If there are any other values than the metaphysical, how are they justified? The left does value equality of outcome and it might seem unjust to more productive people but why would you put them above any other being if their soul is the only objective value equal to any other? The whole point of the soul is to elevate people above any materialistic hierarchy.

A theory on the matter referred to in the OP, and the contingent factors, that is persuasive to me, is as follows... In the struggle between the so-calleds “Left” and “Right”, the eventual victim are facts, as has been widely noted. But the first victim is a sense of fairness, commonality, and compassion in the heat of the clash and debate. And as such, sucks the heart and soul out of any subsequent religious activity. What is left on both sides is mostly a self-righteous shell.

The dinner-table talk taboo, part one: Politics. Opinions and fertilizer, ahoy!

Firstly, the Left confuses mere conservatives with neo-conservatives (including their corporate enablers). Conservatives tend to be traditionalist, mostly religious ie Bible-based Christian, supportive of smaller government, want to take care of USA’s problems before tending to others’, etc. Neo-conservatives tend to want to take over the entire world, or support doing such. Only they would say that they are not “taking over” the entire world, they are “taking care of” most of the world... all while helping the homeland. And doing it ever so dutifully, efficiently, and wisely. (As they themselves might add).

Secondly, the Right confuses liberals (those in favor of progressive policies and larger government) with the so-called dregs of society: the stupid, the godless / the damned / devil-worshippers, the weak and wimpy, the fiscally incompetent, the enemy sympathizer, the... (the list kind of goes on and on) ... the pinko commie, the druggie, and the career felon.

But the unsurprising fact is that there are would-be world dominators AND criminal dregs... ON BOTH SIDES! Both white-collar criminals and common street criminals on both ends of the political spectrum, and in between. Shocking, I know.

But these criminals and potential criminals really are a small percentage of the population. The greater majority of adults who have any kind of political knowledge fall roughly into two categories: the unrelenting warriors; and those that are sick and bone-tired of this long and incipient civil war.

Correct me if I'm wrong but atheism is largely connected to left-wing politics and religiousness to the 'right'. I believe it should be the opposite and here is why. — Jacykow

The dinner-table talk taboo, part two: Religion. (More opinions, personal experiences, and attempted humor incoming.)

Well, I would not necessarily say it “should” be the opposite. But I can imagine it possibly being very different, given different circumstances. Opposite sides in a struggle tend to do just that by default: take the opposite position from the opposition. If the Right declared hot dogs to be the absolute best picnic food, some on the Left could be certain to back hamburgers. Possibly meatless patties or even all varieties of burgers. If the Left backed coffee as the beverage of choice, the Right would back tea as their party’s fav... oh wait... maybe that’s a bad example. :blush:

More seriously, though... I think that there WAS a burgeoning religious movement on the Left / liberal side. Many of its roots were in the counterculture 1960s, though it reached further back in its influences. It was multi-cultural and drew much on the Far Eastern and Aboriginal traditions, while still retaining some European and Middle Eastern spiritual and religious traditions. Especially the mystical Abrahamic practices and ideas, as well as classical philosophical ones. This movement peaked in the early 2000s, but lost much momentum and direction in the wake the tragedies of September 11, 2001.

At that time, I was in several spiritual groups that were open to the possibly of (at least discussing) comparative religion. We had public book discussions, metaphysics studies, alternative healing classes, and participated in drum circles dedicated to soothing at least some of the psychological trauma of the terror attacks.

But within a short time, it felt like a cold fog had descended upon this somewhat new-age spiritual scene, and not just locally. The possibility of conversing about comparative religion, let alone some kind of perennial philosophy, seemed a distant memory. For example, after 9/11 how on earth could a bookstore discussion group talk about Sufi poets or something, and not feel conflicted or hesitant. Or even spied upon. The fear and unease was both palpable and unnameable.

And years later, to the detriment of all, the splintered feeling remains. All one can do in such situations is pick up whatever pieces that can be found. One by one. And keep looking for a higher ground that is also a middle ground. This place on earth exists, it just needs to be discovered.

Some scholars advocate abandoning the term "religion" altogether, but this just kicks the can down the road a bit further, as the proposed replacement terms are often even more vague than the word they are meant to replace.

I think it can be recognized to have meaning with respect to pre-modern and non-Western societies, but not in the sense of a Hegelian reification of the term, which would be ahistorical. — Thorongil

I am reading Wilfred Cantwell Smith's The Meaning and End of Religion, for reference. The central thesis is that religion in its "corporate", either/or exclusivist form didn't "fully" manifest in the Western mind until after the Enlightenment. This is especially true for Oriental religions. These have been attempted to be classified by Westerns as "Hinduism" or "Confucianism", etc, when in reality this simplifies things and leaves out the reality of the situation; that nowhere in India was there a unified religious sect that can be seen as "Hinduism" - there are Hindus, but there is no Hinduism.

What happened, according to Cantwell Smith, is that some Muslims invaded India and introduced the idea of an either/or religious mentality. This was also done during the Crusades, and later Western Christians in their atrocious colonial efforts steam-rolled over traditional religious belief and attempted to classify them in the way they classify religions back home in Europe.

As long as the characteristics that you ascribed to the term were present during early Christianity, there's no need for the word "religion" to appear in any texts. If you wish to dispute that early Christianity had the characteristics that you talked about, say so and let's see if it did or not. — Πετροκότσυφας

I already told you, I didn't want to derail the thread and that I would make a specific post about this topic later when I finish more readings. At any rate, in the early Christian texts never mention the term "religion" - the term "faith" is used primarily and is akin to the personal, inner faith of someone. Later, by the 16th century, "religion" was being used more, and then by around Kant we have the term "Christianity". Similarly, the trend went from Christian -> Christendom -> Christianity. Of course, the Roman persecution of the Christians helped with this progression, as did the Crusades.

You can read ancient texts, but most are interpretations, translations. The word "religion" has no counterpart in China, or India, for example. Up until the ~16th century, Europe had no word for it either.

There are many of the 'religious left', including many Catholic social democrats and intellectuals. Jacques Maritain, neo-Thomist philosopher, and Raimundo Panikkar, distinguished scholar of comparative religon, are both of the religious left. Dorothy Day - Catholic unionist and agitator for women's rights. Many contributors to the Commonweal Magazine. The Dalai Lama has said (somewhat puzzlingly) that he's communist. There are doubtless thousands of other examples. — Wayfarer

However, these figures are all still socially conservative, as far as I know, which to me is a primary line of demarcation between a leftist and a non-leftist.

Can you give an example of a belief system that introduces the soul as something without an unquestionable value given to every person? — Jacykow

I don't understand the grammar of the question. Are you asking for a worldview that accepts the existence of the soul but does not think the soul has any value? None exist, so far as I am aware. Otherwise, I don't know what you're asking.

The central thesis is that religion in its "corporate", either/or exclusivist form didn't "fully" manifest in the Western mind until after the Enlightenment. This is especially true for Oriental religions. These have been attempted to be classified by Westerns as "Hinduism" or "Confucianism", etc, when in reality this simplifies things and leaves out the reality of the situation; that nowhere in India was there a unified religious sect that can be seen as "Hinduism" - there are Hindus, but there is no Hinduism. — darthbarracuda

Yes, he's right about this.

Seems to me that, historically, the rebellion against religious authority has been because the religious authority has clung to the power and corruption permitted by right-wing authorities, and there has been a mutual interest between these two parties to preserve the status quo to the detriment of the people.

Not very Christ-like.

If you take a materialists point of view there are no values apart from the ones you create. If you don't then this generalization is not about you since the stereotypical leftist is an atheist. — Jacykow

I think you'll agree that we don't create all of our values. We may contrive and develop some, but many are ingrained into us from birth and the culture in which we are raised.

Some believe that a major benefit that the enlightenment brought is the capacity to categorize our values, like 'religious' and 'secular', for example.

Can you give an example of a belief system that introduces the soul as something without an unquestionable value given to every person? — Jacykow

In a sense, Buddhism holds that the 'concept' of a soul has negative value, in that there are no essences, and ignorance, or a lack of realization of this, leads to suffering.

The whole point of the soul is to elevate people above any materialistic hierarchy.

Interesting theory.

A curious phenomenon with conservatives is that they're predominantly pro-life AND pro-death penalty. How does that make any sense at all? Because they hold to 'traditional' values. Who determines those values? Not the individual.

:up: Yes, amen. At least in the USA, there seems to be collusion between the two main parties, who shall remain nameless (if not blameless). I have long admired countries that have numerous political parties with a relative equilibrium of power. England and Germany, for example. However, my view from the nosebleed section of the peanut gallery may be mistaken.

Also mistaken may be my opinion that the best thing to happen to Christianity was becoming Rome’s official religion. Which gave it protection and helped it spread. And I feel that the worst thing to happen in the history of Christianity was becoming Rome’s official religion, for it then answered to a new and worldly master.

Buddhism is a major religion. Although Buddhism is called a religion, Buddhism does not worship deities. Buddhism is an example that shows that a religion does not have to worship deities, to be called a religion. There is something more fundamental than just deities, when it come to defining a religion. Deities are one way to express a religion, but not the only way.

With that in mind, there are plenty of religions, not officially called religions, based on the erroneous or limiting assumption that a religion has to have deities. This definition is too narrow and self serving. Buddhism shows the definition of religion is much broader than just deities. The narrow definition is used because with no deities involved, many hidden religions are exempt from separation of church and state laws; money and political value.

If you go back to the original point of left versus right and religion, Conservatives tend to conserve the past, so their religions will tend to be traditional instead of improvised. The left is more liberal and likes to be try new things. Their religions will tend to be more faddish, novel, or hidden behind the looser deity definition of religion. The left still has religion, but not as obvious. This is easier to see with the broader definition.

For example, if you look at Socialism, people who favor this, view the possibility of a cooperative utopian paradise on earth. It seems humanly possible so it does not need deities. Although inspiring to think about, this is not a reality image in terms of previous social tests of this political orientation. There is a mythological element, overlay, beyond applied reality; alternate reality. This alternate reality does not involve deities, which is the loophole. Although the type of leader needed to make this happen and make it sustainable, would become mythological. Again, to avoid separation of church and state laws, this paradise religion has to avoid deities. The rest of the mythology is allowed.

We need to broaden the definition to include all forms of group worship, designed to distort reality, for better or worse, using metaphysical, archetypical and other idealized elements. The anti-Trump movement would be form of religion, by the broader definition, since it is a type of mythology where the archetypical evil leader takes on the traits of all things bad. It is a type of fairy tale. This is not reality but is a religion without deities.

There is a spiritual need in all of us. If one does not use the traditional approaches, one will find another avenue that does the same thing; gives the same buzz. If one is not aware they are worshiping in a hidden religion, the impact can be loss of soul, where you lose yourself in a fantasy. If you are aware this a religion and you still choose, your soul remains with you. Hidden versus open religion is why the left is more besides itself, and the right is able to maintain; conserve.

atheism is largely connected to left-wing politics and religiousness to the 'right'. I believe it should be the opposite — Jacykow

I've always thought that. I must admit I come at it from the opposite direction: it has always seemed to me that the right-wing approach to capitalism, money (and acquiring it), and how to behave toward others, is diametrically opposed to traditional Christian values. [N.B. I am not a Christian.] Jesus preached charity, not hatred toward a government that tried to help the poor using taxes paid by the (relatively) rich. For everyone who becomes rich, others become poor in proportion. [The cake is of finite size.] And so on. Christianity, as Jesus preached it, is left-wing. The corollary to this is that right-wingers cannot be Christians.... :scream:

But I see no obvious reason to place atheism onto the political spectrum. :chin:

The anti-Trump movement would be form of religion, by the broader definition, since it is a type of mythology where the archetypical evil leader takes on the traits of all things bad. It is a type of fairy tale. This is not reality but is a religion without deities. — wellwisher

I’m “anti-Trump” and I know with certainty that he’s not the embodiment of all things bad. That is indeed a silly fairy tale. Do you actually believe this narrative?

Hidden versus open religion is why the left is more besides itself, and the right is able to maintain; conserve. — wellwisher

What does this mean?

Hidden versus open religion is why the left is more besides itself, and the right is able to maintain; conserve. — well-wisher

Religion is a natural part of human experience, since it exercises parts of the brain. It works the frontal lobe; imagination, as well as various spatial or 3-D aspects of the brain. The concept of God merges opposites; left versus right is 2-D, into a neutral third, which is 3-D. Jesus on the cross in the center between two thieves is a 3-D concept. One attempts to merge opposites into a new center that is different from the two.

If you practice a religion, but are not aware you are doing so, due to denial it is a religion, the exercise still has the same unconscious affects. If you practice a religion, with open eyes, without denial, there is less unconsciousness.

The definition of religion that is now in use; religion defined by deities, allows plausible denial, by the left, based on a human tradition. This tradition and the denial does not negate how the brain reacts to the religious exercise. It will still react the same way, whether our eyes are open or closed. However, closed eyes get a different brain output due to different conscious potential.

For health's sake, we are all better off if we have everyone doing their religion, do so with open eyes, by retooling the definition of religion, to reflect brain impact, and not social politics.

Manmade global warming is a religion. It is not coincidence that the right is less impacted, since they already have a core religion. They don't need another one. The left is still looking for a core replacement, that is not called a religion, based on the current definition, but which gives the same brain buzz.

Trump spoiled the worship service of manmade global warming when it messed up the money exchange rituals. The left was left scrambling for a new religion. It found it in Trump mythology, where Trump is the archetypical bad guy. Even many atheists have become irrational, no longer using science to weigh the claims of their religion, against hard evidence.

The atheist religion; based on the broader definition, is similar to a mirror image of Buddhism; opposites. Buddhism is introspective that denies the illusions of the world; cultural and materialism, in favor of developing the inner man and higher human potential. There is science in this; meditation, without the need of deities. The atheists seek a similar goal; human progress, but do so in an extroverted way, connected to materialism, technology, and cultural norms.

Religion is a natural part of human experience, since it exercises parts of the brain. It works the frontal lobe; imagination, as well as various spatial or 3-D aspects of the brain. The concept of God merges opposites; left versus right is 2-D, into a neutral third, which is 3-D. Jesus on the cross in the center between two thieves is a 3-D concept. One attempts to merge opposites into a new center that is different from the two. — wellwisher

I can't tell if you're being serious or not.

If you practice a religion, but are not aware you are doing so, due to denial it is a religion, the exercise still has the same unconscious affects. If you practice a religion, with open eyes, without denial, there is less unconsciousness. — wellwisher

The subconscious effect you're talking about essentially amounts to bonding. Indeed some etymological interpretations of the word 'religion' connect it with religare "to bind fast." Many sociological phenomenon function in this way, such as ideologies, political affiliations, sports enthusiasm, or in a very deliberate fashion, commercial branding.

Either we're aware of the binding or we're not, the particular type of meaning system is irrelevant. If anything, someone adhering to a religious system of meaning would tend to be less conscious of its effects on them, as evidenced by the way a religious believer will often irrationally deny obvious facts.

The definition of religion that is now in use; religion defined by deities, allows plausible denial, by the left, based on a human tradition. — wellwisher

I can't make much sense of this as stated. Only someone who doesn't know much about religion would define it by deities. What human tradition are you referring to?

Manmade global warming is a religion. It is not coincidence that the right is less impacted, since they already have a core religion. They don't need another one. The left is still looking for a core replacement, that is not called a religion, based on the current definition, but which gives the same brain buzz. — wellwisher

Unfortunately, global warming became politically associated with the left, most notably because of Al Gore's championing the issue. He may have unintentionally done more harm than good in this respect.

The left was left scrambling for a new religion. It found it in Trump mythology, where Trump is the archetypical bad guy. — wellwisher

Archetypally, Trump is a trickster. The tricksters' function is basically to restore meaning in a stagnant system. In the bigger picture, Trump could end up being a good thing.

The atheist religion; based on the broader definition, is similar to a mirror image of Buddhism; opposites. Buddhism is introspective that denies the illusions of the world; cultural and materialism, in favor of developing the inner man and higher human potential. There is science in this; meditation, without the need of deities. The atheists seek a similar goal; human progress, but do so in an extroverted way, connected to materialism, technology, and cultural norms. — wellwisher

Buddhism has no interest in "developing the inner man and higher human potential." It's interested in transcending samsara (everything). And there are deities in Buddhism.

Western enlightenment values, which the left predominantly subscribes to, puts its faith in reason, science, humanism, and progress. This could be seen as a religion, as you seem to define it. But when it gets too religious it starts to become anti-enlightenment.