Defining religion is a mess. I thought everyone knew that, :P

See my comment about careful reading. You've produced three quotes, each of which use the word 'individual', and you have projected onto that that I must be saying that 'only individuals are real' even though none of the quotes contain those words, or anything to that effect. Please take the time to read what is written carefully, and respond to what is actually said, not what your presuppositions lead you to expect to be said.

Surely you can tell the difference between a statement that what matters to our prospects of a peaceful society is the beliefs of individuals about things like tolerance rather than the labels we put on them, and a statement that only individuals are real. Can't you?

With my current worldview I would not say anything like 'only the individual is real' because I am a communitarian politically and incline towards the Vedantic spiritually.

You're advocating liberal individualism — Wayfarer

Again, absolutely not. I see an overemphasis on individualism as one of the cancers of Western society. Nothing in what I said argues in favour of individualism in the libertarian sense. What I am against is stereotyping. Do you understand the difference between being libertarian and being anti-stereotyping?

Fair enough - but the nub of the issue remains. You're defending Islam on the basis of the fact that it's the right of the individuals who practice it, in accordance with their conscience, and with the principles of 'freedom of religion'.

But that is not acually the Muslim view of what is valuable about Islam. That is why I linked to the NY Times opinion piece, by a Muslim, which was mulling over 'whether free speech is good for Muslims'. He is saying the very same thing! It's a two-way street. Very important to understand that.

I'm not accusing you of anything, I don't think you're a libertarian or anything of the kind. But notice that you're juxtaposing 'what individual really believe' with 'the idea of Islam' and questioning whether there can be an 'authentic' Islam (or other belief). So I'm pointing out, that from this perspective, all such ideas are validated on the grounds that 'individuals believe them' - not on account of any intrinsic worth or objective reality (remember the discussion where you said that all such things are subject to 'widely divergent opinions'). In pointing that out, I'm just trying to articulate the pre-suppositions that we bring to the debate. And I don't think my response has been at all uncharitable or tendentious. It's very thorny issue.

Because religion at its heart is a communal construct, an institution. In all honesty, I'd argue that religion is most likely inherently institutional to begin with. Spirituality isn't always, however, which I think is what some here are trying to distinguish? — Heister Eggcart

That's worth a thread. There's a social trend called 'spiritual but not religious' - I think I am likely to fall under the heading myself, although there are many blurred lines and porous boundaries.

The principle of individual rights is attributable to the Christian West, where 'freedom of conscience', 'freedom of association', and so on. Of course it is true that many such reforms were fought tooth and nail by religious conservatives, but the reformers themselves were also Christian. — Wayfarer

Many were also deists, freethinkers, and various other sorts of non-Christian.

I don't like any religion by the way... — Benkei

Me either, so it's odd to be in the position of "defending" one. I have curbed my anti-theism a bit though. Secular liberal consumer societies are no panacea.

Me either, so it's odd to be in the position of "defending" one. I have curbed my anti-theism a bit though. Secular liberal consumer societies are no panacea. — Baden

I can just see you now, gulping a kelp shake and watching Al Jazeera on the tele, with a yoga mat 'neath your bum.

A finer example of Poe's law I never did see.

*Suddenly paranoid - turning off web cam now*

The principle of individual rights is attributable to the Christian West, where 'freedom of conscience', 'freedom of association', and so on. Of course it is true that many such reforms were fought tooth and nail by religious conservatives, but the reformers themselves were also Christian. — Wayfarer

Many were also deists, freethinkers, and various other sorts of non-Christian. — Arkady

I always thought that the pre-revolutionary American colonies were characterized by the very active Christianity that would dominate later on. Apparently this was not the case. There is no denying that New England was dominated by the descendants of English Puritans, but the intellectual core of the colonies was, as Arkady noted, free-thinking.

It was especially the Second Great Awakening of the 19th century that brought about the dominance of Evangelical Protestantism--Methodists and Baptists, particularly. Catholicism would become very important through immigration.

The free-thinkers were apparently not much exercised about abortion, sodomy, birth control (such as it was), and obscenity that became critical issues under a movement sponsored by Anthony Comstock beginning in the late 19th into the 20th century. Anthony Comstock, for instance, objected to the profanity used by his fellow Union soldiers in the Civil War. Had his compatriots said things like "Oh dear, my arm's just been shot off" or "Shucks, I missed" our history might have been very different.



So, some of our worst features were brought to us through our much honored religious American traditions, and some of our best features were delivered through the good offices of the Enlightenment.

American history isn't Australian history, of course.

I have taken the liberty of transferring the above to a new thread, as it's quite removed from the subject of this one. Trust that is OK.

I don't like any religion by the way and think the institutionalisation of religious experiences is the worst social construct invented so far. — Benkei

There are lots of good reasons (and no reasons needed at all, of course) for you to dislike religion, but the rest of this statement isn't sound. Individuals might have private "spiritual experiences", whatever those might be, in isolation from any recognizable belief system. But they can not have "religious experiences" without the institutions of religion, which defines what spiritual, god, holy, prayer, and so forth are.

Indeed, were there no constructed institutional religions, private spiritual experiences probably wouldn't exist as a construct either. They might end up being constructed as a psychopathology.

There are lots of good reasons (and no reasons needed at all, of course) for you to dislike religion, but the rest of this statement isn't sound. Individuals might have private "spiritual experiences", whatever those might be, in isolation from any recognizable belief system. But they can not have "religious experiences" without the institutions of religion, which defines what spiritual, god, holy, prayer, and so forth are. — Bitter Crank

Semantics. You can replace religious experiences with spiritual if that reads more comfortable for you. I'm using the term as William James did in his variety of religious experiences.

Without Christianity's institutionalization in Western society, Western civilization would never have gotten off of its feet. — Heister Eggcart

Aside from the impossibility to check this, there was A Roman and Greek empire before that, which did well without Christianity. In fact, it could be argued Christianity was the cancer that destroyed The Roman empire from within, causing its fall along with other issues (economics, overstretched, invasions).

"Spiritual" in the current common parlance of the US is such an extremely nebulous, vague, positive-sounding non-inferential term, that it isn't the same as "religion". In most cases, people use this term here as a 'cop out' meaning, "I don't want to talk about religion."

I can appreciate the explanation of the distinction and saw that in any case you understood my intended meaning. As long as understanding is reached we shouldn't care overly much how. (Y)

To add to my lists of dislikes: authority based on hierarchy or tradition. The basis for authority, other than merit, is one of respect and that has to be earned by offering respect to others. Mullahs, imams, priest, cardinals, rabbis or any one else seeking divine dispensation to promote being a dick to others do not offer the appropriate respect to others and therefore lack all authority. All subject to my personal, but enlightened, judgment. Of course.

When I'm a dick I'm 100% responsible myself. No hiding behind a book or a pontificating patsy.

To add to my lists of dislikes: authority based on hierarchy or tradition. The basis for authority, other than merit, is one of respect and that has to be earned by offering respect to others. Mullahs, imams, priest, cardinals, rabbis or any one else seeking divine dispensation to promote being a dick to others do not offer the appropriate respect to others and therefore lack all authority. All subject to my personal, but enlightened, judgment. Of course — Benkei

Yet mullahs or cardinals ought to be chosen by their merit. Be that piousness or whatever. What comes to my mind is just royalty where the crown is inherited. Yet the custom is a logical way to try to prevent the dangers of powerstruggles when modern power structures didn't exist. Naturally hasn't work allways, but still.

And for many people that Divine right is far more understandable that some vague philosophical idea or simple practicality. Easy answer.

Thanks for this, BC. As others have pointed out, you always seem to have a ready supply of relevant information to bring to bear in these threads. The historical name "Comstock" was vaguely familiar to me, but I may have associated it more with the "Comstock lode," which the other Comstock likely would have found phonetically disagreeable, given his views on "vice." I am reminded of that great H.L. Mencken quote, which defines Puritanism as "the haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be happy."

I would point out, however, that my remarks about freethinkers should not be taken to be limited to the Western hemisphere, as there were European Renaissance humanists, for instance, who were integral in pushing back against the superannuated superstitions of the past in forming the modern world. Indeed, if Christianity's death grip on Western culture were never loosened, we may well still be hunting "witches" and massacring Jews for poisoning the local well every time there is an outbreak of illness.

But, yes, some of the giants of the U.S.'s founding were freethinkers or religious skeptics. Thomas Paine comes to mind here. Even the esteemed George Washington declined to accept communion at church service. You are probably familiar with the "Jefferson Bible," in which ol' Tom snipped out some of the more ridiculous passages of the NT, instead compiling a sort of "greatest hits" compilation of JC's moral teachings.

When someone tells me that they are “Not religious, but very spiritual,” I want to punch them in the face. — David Webster, Dispirited

Should we expect any action on this offer in the near future? — Bitter Crank

I thought maybe we could do an internet petition. Maybe march around the White House. Save martyrdom for the last resort.

When someone tells me that they are “Not religious, but very spiritual,” I want to punch them in the face. — David Webster, Dispirited

Well, David Webster might seek anger management counselling. Or perhaps enrol in a meditation class.

I would point out, however, that my remarks about freethinkers should not be taken to be limited to the Western hemisphere, as there were European Renaissance humanists, for instance, who were integral in pushing back against the superannuated superstitions of the past in forming the modern world — Arkady

Two of the leading renaissance humanists - Ficino and Erasmus - were priests. Della Mirandolla was not. But they were all to a greater or lesser extent platonist or neo-platonist (Ficino translated the Complete Works of Plato into Latin). To be sure they had run-ins with the Church, but in their view, atheism would completely undercut what they understood as 'humanism'.

Suddenly I remembered that one of the foremost, courageous advocates of tolerance and engagement with moderate Muslims, and openness to Syrian refugees, is Angela Merkel - the new Leader of the Free World, as some (including me) see it.

The fact that she is on the Right of German politics is a good demonstration that this is not a left-right issue. It is simply about compassion and open-mindedness. There are compassionate, open-minded people on both 'sides' of politics.

Although the OP isn't about the relationship between 'the Left' and Islam, that alleged relationship has featured strongly in the discussion, and articles with titles like 'The Left has an Islam problem' have been frequently cited. Really those articles should be entitled 'the Compassionate and Open-minded have an Islam problem', in order to capture Angela Merkel and people like her on the 'Right' within the scope of their disdain.

Angela Merkel - the new Leader of the Free World — andrewk

Where's my vomit bag....

moderate Muslims — andrewk

Define. And please tell me where they are.

Plus, I forgot to add, she's a practising, moderate Christian, which is a good example of why secular societies benefit from being tolerant of moderate Christians as well.

Where's my vomit bag.... — Thorongil

You have a special bag for that?

Two of the leading renaissance humanists - Ficino and Erasmus - were priests. Della Mirandolla was not. But they were all to a greater or lesser extent platonist or neo-platonist (Ficino translated the Complete Works of Plato into Latin). To be sure they had run-ins with the Church, but in their view, atheism would completely undercut what they understood as 'humanism'. — Wayfarer

Does being a freethinker somehow preclude someone from being a (neo)-Platonist?

No, I was simply making the point that the secularism of the renaissance was still informed by a generally spiritual philosophy.

Consider it a footnote.

No, I was simply making the point that the secularism of the renaissance was still informed by a generally spiritual philosophy.

Consider it a footnote. — Wayfarer

I don't know how many full-blown atheists there really were in Renaissance Europe. No doubt some of the "spiritual" people you refer to were actually closet atheists. In some places one risked life and livelihood in criticizing religion. Thomas Aikenhead was hung for blasphemy shortly before 1700 (well into the early modern era). Even Hume appeared to show some trepidation in criticizing religion too openly, couching some of his critiques in the form of his dialogues (which allows for plausible deniability).

Suddenly I remembered that one of the foremost, courageous advocates of tolerance and engagement with moderate Muslims, and openness to Syrian refugees, is Angela Merkel - the new Leader of the Free World, as some (including me) see it. — andrewk

I do admire her for what she has done in this respect not least because of the political risks involved and the criticism she's copped from boors like Trump. There was a current affairs documentary on Syrian refugees in Germany, last year - the Germans really have done an extraordinary job trying to facilitate their integration. If Muslims can be safely integrated into Western culture, in large numbers, while preserving the key aspects of their ethos, then the doubters will have been proven wrong.

Although the OP isn't about the relationship between 'the Left' and Islam, that alleged relationship has featured strongly in the discussion, and articles with titles like 'The Left has an Islam problem' have been frequently cited. Really those articles should be entitled 'the Compassionate and Open-minded have an Islam problem', in order to capture Angela Merkel and people like her on the 'Right' within the scope of their disdain — andrewk

It might have been too much to cram in to the OP, but there is a noteworthy dynamic in the discussion of Islam that involves some proponents of the self described far left, but it's somewhat difficult to precisely describe...

We know the kind of tomfoolery that results from having no compassion and also being close-minded, and also what results from the angelic inverse, but what do you get when someone is both close-minded and highly compassionate?

Basically you get someone who will actually defend all manner of abhorrent actions citing respect for culture (and in this case) while denying any possible moral rebuke of harmful religious/cultural beliefs and practices. And by insulating everyone and everything from all criticism, they also insulate the groups they seek to protect from reform. Labeled pejoratively as "regressives" by their peers (on the basis of endorsing moral regression as opposed to progression) this vocal group provides the fodder for the perception that the left has an Islam problem (For anyone who may not know, the perceived problem is that the left is unable to discuss Islam objectively due to bias, fear of being racist, etc...).

This group represents a very, very small slice of the public (18-25 students form it's core demographic), but they are tech savvy and the emotional insulation that is inherent in their position makes them very advertiser friendly, which gives them undue presence in mainstream culture. People reacting severely to the left's problem with Islam are reacting to this very thin but loud group. They go on to equate anything which detracts from their full and scathing condemnation of Islam as a whole with full blown cultural relativism. The vigor of their reaction causes even more of a reaction from the regressives, which in turn refuels the cycle.

It's a self-reinforcing feedback loop and both parties get something out of it. The close-minded/non-compassionate get politically correct airheads to make fun of and be angry at, and the airheads get an emulation of the kind of hateful opposition that validates their position. Compassion itself might be a trait we can associate with the left, which could explain why more right wing pundits please their audiences with hate, but "open-mindedness" unfortunately doesn't come included with any ideology. It's not that philosophically interesting, but these are the sad roots of the portrayal of the left's Islam problem.