Is hegemony the true danger? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Is hegemony the true danger?
in Politics

For a little context, I was watching a debate between long time atheist activist Aron Ra and Michael Jones of Inspiring philosophy titled "Is Christianity dangerous?"
I'm not here to talk about that debate or subject.

During the debate Aron makes the point that there is a negative correlation between religiosity and murder rates, and secular countries are the opposite. (0:23:18) He quotes Phil Zuckerman: "It is the highly secularized countries that tend to fair the best in terms of crime rate prosperity, freedom, democracy, women's right human rights education and life expectancy although there are exceptions such as Vietnam and China which have historically high crime records and those nations with the highest rates of religiosity tend to be the most problem ridden in terms of high violent crime rates, high infant mortality rates, high poverty rates, and high rates of corruption."

During the Q&A someone asks the question "it seems a lot of the abuses you identify, and I would say the majority correctly in Christianity are actually common abuses of holding hegemonic power in general regardless of the one who is holding the power... Are you filtering for that? As a critique of hegemonic power in general as opposed to a specifically religious hegemonic power" (1:36:10)

So the theory is that a hegemonic power that is highly authoritarian and denies basic human rights may cause the people to be more likely to accept and hold on to religion for its comforting effect in the guise of a moral truth. This would explain why there are exceptions, because it was never about religion, it was about authority and people forcing their will on others. Most of those countries used religion as a tool to keep people in line, but it isn't necessary. Hegemonic religious institutions have fought against ideas that were outside of themselves, like science because they see it as a threat to their dominance.

Countries that are more equal tend to become more secular because ideas can spread freely and religions tend to be tolerated but not imposed. This is the trend we have seen over time in secular nations, that each generation is less religious than the one before it.

Is this perspective more accurate or completely wrong?
MayCaesarsmoothie
At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
All of that so we can argue about nothing.



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • I think your 4th paragraph is spot on. Religion, as any other ideology, can be followed for a variety of reasons, and it is those reasons that primarily determine the impact of religion on the individual, rather than the religion itself.

    In Soviet Union and in pre-Xiaoping China, life was hard and painful, and the government tried its best to suppress at their roots any ideologies alternative to communism. Under those condition, a lot of people found some peace in following respectively Christianity and Buddhism, as those religions allowed them to escape from the constant ideological pressure and gave them hope that the world is not yet doomed forever and one day ideological pluralism may return. I do not know too much about Chinese buddhists under Mao, but Soviet Christians were some of the most peaceful individuals, even though Soviets regularly initiated violence campaigns against them.

    On the other hand, in Medieval Europe, and in the Islamic world nowadays, respectively Christianity and Islam were used as tools to exert tight control over individuals, to the point where any minor transgression would be punishable by methods which nowadays on the West are hard for us to fathom. In those cases, religion is not really an ideology in itself, but merely a tool wielded by hypocrites hungry for power.
    And when the governing ideology is wielded by hypocrites, people subjected to it also become hypocrites. Religious dogmas become merely checkmarks in their books: "Today the government requires that I do this, this and this, and after that I will forget about religion and go my own way". This cultivates a dismissive attitude, where people do not take religion too seriously and start looking for ways to get around it.
    I have heard from immigrants from Iran that, despite Iran technically outlawing all alcohol, in practice almost everyone drinks in evenings at the underground bars, because life is so hopeless that without drinking people start losing their minds.

    Crime fundamentally comes from lack of self-responsibility (I mean crime as in an act of severe violation of other people's rights; I do not mean crime as in defined by the government, which often outlaws completely innocent things). When the individual lacks a strong moral compass and allows for shortcuts in order to get what they want, they are very likely to try to exploit others for their personal gain. 
    On the other hand, when the individual has a solid moral compass and is responsible enough to never allow themselves any transgressions, then they will never commit any crime intentionally.

    Some of the most crime-ridden countries in the world, such as the poor countries in the Central America or Subsaharan Africa, are those in which morals have fallen apart, in which everyone is too busy trying to survive to worry about such things as dignity, responsibility and self-control. Moral corruption there is incredible, people cannot trust anyone and are forced to resort to betraying and backstabbing others to stay competitive.
    And some of the safest countries in the world, such as Japan, Iceland or Luxembourg, are countries with high sophisticated cultures which feature somewhat authoritarian, but just morals. If you betray someone in Japan, then people will not as much be offended at you, as puzzled, "Why would you do this?" It is just not something that people have to consider there, because the morals are extremely respected by virtually everyone.

    Somewhat paradoxically, this leads to totalitarian countries typically being relatively "bad crime"-free and "good crime"-ridden. Things like murder or robbery were virtually unheard of in Soviet Union, and are virtually unheard of in modern Cuba, because people there listen to the governmental propaganda daily, that conditions them to never think outside the box and to follow the stated rules, creating a certain variation of a strong moral system in this regard. However, things that have been outlawed unjustly, such as drinking in Iran, or enterpreneurship in Soviet Union and Cuba, are still done by the vast majority of people underground, because of the dismissing attitude I pointed out earlier: people know that they can get away with it, so they do it.

    I would not want people to take it as advocacy for a strong moral system, however. I like the moral system in the US: here everything is fairly flexible, and as a result crime rates, as well as various minor violations, are more widespread than, say, in Europe or Japan (in those places you rarely see people speeding by 5-10 mph on a highway, for example, while here probably most drivers do that). But on the flip side, people are also more prone to think outside the box, to come up with original business-ideas and scientific hypotheses. The crime rates are still low enough to not affect the lives of the majority of the population, and the intellectual diversity is arguably the highest in the world.
    But in case one wants to lower the crime rates in the US, I do not think that the return to religious values is the way to go. Rather, people should learn to naturally respect each other's interests and realise that, ultimately, only activities that give value to people truly lead to both the individual and the societal prosperity. For that purpose, we need more advocates for individual responsibility such as Jordan Peterson, as well as charity-funded awareness campaigns. People should realise that making irresponsible shortcuts is not just a one-time thing, but it is something that conditions people to make more shortcuts in the future and, ultimately, changes them as an individual for worse. 

    For one, I think our education system needs a serious revamp, with priority on accountability. The narrative that "the material is very hard for kids, so it should be simplified, so the kids can get higher grades" should be replaced with "if you are not willing to study hard enough to process the material, then bear consequences". If someone has failed a class, then, instead of bailing them out, they should have to retake the class next year. If someone has not fulfilled the graduation requirements, then they should not be able to graduate.
    "Participation trophies" is one of the worst developments in Western education and should go away. People should be rewarded for success and bear consequences for failure; simply trying is not enough in life, and should not be enough in education.
    People should internalise that everything they do and do not has consequences, and it is up to them to deal with those consequences.
    Happy_Killbot
  • TKDBTKDB 355 Pts
    edited December 3
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemony

    "Hegemony (UK/hɪˈɡɛməni, hɪˈdʒɛməni/US/hɪˈdʒɛməni/ (About this soundpronunciation (help·info)) or /ˈhɛdʒəˌmoʊni/) is the political, economic, or military predominance or control of one state over others.[1][2][3][4][5] In ancient Greece (8th century BC – 6th century AD), hegemony denoted the politico-military dominance of a city-state over other city-states.[6] The dominant state is known as the hegemon.[7] In the 19th century, hegemony came to denote the "Social or cultural predominance or ascendancy; predominance by one group within a society or milieu". Later, it could be used to mean "a group or regime which exerts undue influence within a society".[8] Also, it could be used for the geopolitical and the cultural predominance of one country over others, from which was derived hegemonism, as in the idea that the Great Powers meant to establish European hegemony over Asia and Africa.[9]

    In cultural imperialism, the leader state dictates the internal politics and the societal character of the subordinate states that constitute the hegemonic sphere of influence, either by an internal, sponsored government or by an external, installed government.

    In international relations theory, hegemony denotes a situation of (i) great material asymmetry in favour of one state, who has (ii) enough military power to systematically defeat any potential contester in the system, (iii) controls the access to raw materials, natural resources, capital and markets, (iv) has competitive advantages in the production of value added goods, (v) generates an accepted ideology reflecting this status quo; and (vi) is functionally differentiated from other states in the system, being expected to provide certain public goods such as security, or commercial and financial stability.[10]

    The Marxist theory of cultural hegemony, associated particularly with Antonio Gramsci, is the idea that the ruling class can manipulate the value system and mores of a society, so that their view becomes the world view (Weltanschauung): in Terry Eagleton's words, "Gramsci normally uses the word hegemony to mean the ways in which a governing power wins consent to its rule from those it subjugates".[11] In contrast to authoritarian rule, cultural hegemony "is hegemonic only if those affected by it also consent to and struggle over its common sense".[12] "


    I read through this information, and nowhere, within its very own wording, did I (See) any references towards Religion? 

    So in viewing the "Perception," from the Wikipedia website in regards to (Hegemony.)

    Verses how @Happy_Killbot expressed his "perception," 

    I view his perception as being, slightly unfounded:

    "So the theory is that a hegemonic power that is highly authoritarian and denies basic human rights may cause the people to be more likely to accept and hold on to religion for its comforting effect in the guise of a moral truth. This would explain why there are exceptions, because it was never about religion, it was about authority and people forcing their will on others. Most of those countries used religion as a tool to keep people in line, but it isn't necessary. Hegemonic religious institutions have fought against ideas that were outside of themselves, like science because they see it as a threat to their dominance.

    Countries that are more equal tend to become more secular because ideas can spread freely and religions tend to be tolerated but not imposed. This is the trend we have seen over time in secular nations, that each generation is less religious than the one before it."

    Unless @Happy_Killbot has another Hegemony reference material resource, that he can share with this forum, to reinforce his perception with?



    Happy_KillbotZeusAres42
  • @TKDB

    TKDB said:

    I read through this information, and nowhere, within its very own wording, did I (See) any references towards Religion? 

    Weird... It's almost like if they were references to religion my question would be redundant...

    of course, if you live your life through redundant questions maybe it would be normal to think like that.

    If you actually read and understood what I said, then though rationally about it, you would realize that it technically gives an excuse for all the evils committed in the name of religion if it is true. Instead you yet again uphold the high standard you have set for yourself thus far by making yet another meaningless comment.
    ZeusAres42
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • @MayCaesar I agree with almost everything you said, and would probably make most of the same arguments with only parsing differences, but I don't think this is quite sufficient to get to the heart of the question. It is undeniable that many authoritarian regimes use religion as a tool to control the people, which is why government and religion being intertwined is one indicator of fascism.

    Just because authoritarian regimes do evil things and sometimes use religion doesn't necessarily prove that it is the regime which is leading to all these abuses including increased crime and human rights violations, and not the religion which it uses or controls. We haven't ruled out the possibility that both religion and hegemonic powers commit abuses.

    So how might we determine for sure that this is the case, that authoritarian regimes do bad things and associate with religion which has occasionally taken the blame, as opposed to religion doing bad things independently of hegemonic powers?
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • TKDBTKDB 355 Pts
    edited December 3
    @Happy_Killbot

    Man is his own worst, cause of danger.

    And, Im sorry for saying this, but I'm not wracking my brain, with your Atheist Teachings, because it's not worth the waste of my time, being that I'm an Independent Thinker.

    "Weird... It's almost like if they were references to religion my question would be redundant..."

    "of course, if you live your life through redundant questions maybe it would be normal to think like that."

    "If you actually read and understood what I said, then though rationally about it, you would realize that it technically gives an excuse for all the evils committed in the name of religion if it is true. Instead you yet again uphold the high standard you have set for yourself thus far by making yet another meaningless comment."


    And your question:

    "Is hegemony the true danger?"


    Has zero validation, according to the Educational material, that is available on Wikipedia.

    I get to read, and hear, about Mans Evils everyday, via the non hegemony device called the news.

    "If you actually read and understood what I said, then though rationally about it, you would realize that it technically gives an excuse for all the evils committed in the name of religion if it is true."

    Mans Committed Evils:
    Nationwide rape, murder, sexual assaults, gun violence, murder/suicide, domestic violence and abuse, drug addiction, drug overdoses, and so on?

    And Religion, as of this moment, in the United States, there are ZERO Courtroom cases on Record, where any Religion, was found guilty, along with any of those criminals, or offenders who were found guilty, of being responsible for any of those Man caused crimes.




  • DeeDee 1101 Pts
    @TKDB

    ****I view his perception as being, slightly unfounded


    Yet you cannot say why


    ****Unless @Happy_Killbot has another Hegemony reference material resource, that he can share with this forum, to reinforce his perception with?


    What another typically cowardly cop out by you , the piece posted up is asking for others opinions in the probable event an interesting exchange of views may take place , why are you playing the victim yet again and blubbering like a child?

    ZeusAres42
  • DeeDee 1101 Pts
    @TKDB

    *****And, Im sorry for saying this, but I'm not wracking my brain, with your Atheist Teachings


    How can one wrack what they don’t possess.


    How are they Atheist teachings?



    , *****because it's not worth the waste of my time, being that I'm an Independent Thinker.


    Bwaaaaaaahahahahahaha.......I spit my coffee out laughing at this 



    ****Has zero validation, according to the Educational material, that is available on Wikipedia.


    You don’t even know what the term means .....


    hegemony

    /hɪˈdʒɛməni,hɪˈɡɛməni/

    Learn to pronounce

    noun

    noun: hegemony; plural noun: hegemonies

    1. leadership or dominance, especially by one state or social group over others."Germany was united under Prussian hegemony after 1871"



    ****I get to read, and hear, about Mans Evils everyday, via the non hegemony device called the news.


    “Non hegemony device “ seriously are you on medication if the answer is no well it should be yes 


  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 2310 Pts
    edited December 3
    @MayCaesar I agree with almost everything you said, and would probably make most of the same arguments with only parsing differences, but I don't think this is quite sufficient to get to the heart of the question. It is undeniable that many authoritarian regimes use religion as a tool to control the people, which is why government and religion being intertwined is one indicator of fascism.

    Just because authoritarian regimes do evil things and sometimes use religion doesn't necessarily prove that it is the regime which is leading to all these abuses including increased crime and human rights violations, and not the religion which it uses or controls. We haven't ruled out the possibility that both religion and hegemonic powers commit abuses.

    So how might we determine for sure that this is the case, that authoritarian regimes do bad things and associate with religion which has occasionally taken the blame, as opposed to religion doing bad things independently of hegemonic powers?
    This is a very complex question that does not have a simple answer. Here is how I would respond to it.

    First of all, ideology (religious or not) does not commit crimes and human right violations; people do. The real question then is to what extent a particular ideology presupposes people to behave in a destructive and harmful to other individuals way. This question is further complicated by the fact that, technically speaking, there are as many ideologies as there are people, and every individual interprets the general ideology in their own way.
    When we talk about a particular religion causing crimes, do we imply the original version of the religion, the "fundamentalist" one so to speak? Or do we mean the religion as practised today by "moderate" people? In the former case, I would absolutely agree that all the major religions - Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Shintoism, Hinduism and so on - are absolutely fertile grounds for creation of criminals, because of the awful collectivist and authoritarian values they promote. However, in the latter case it really depends on the interpretation of religion, and there are absolutely deeply religious people out there that are less prone to commit crimes than most atheists, for example.

    I recently have employed Jordan Peterson's take on religion: that religion is merely a system of moral views, illustrated through fictional stories. That is, all the fictional framework of a religion should not be taken literally, and, rather, should be used as a medium for illustration of the moral principles promoted. In this interpretation, I do not think that there is something inherently wrong with following religion - as long as the person following it understands that the stories are just a metaphor and are not to be taken as a valid description of the world.

    That said, I believe there is something in religion that makes it inherently irrational and, hence, intellectually dangerous: namely, it is inherently dogmatic. According to the enlightenment principles that made our Western civilisation what it is today, our views, moral and otherwise, are to be constantly challenged and evolving. We must not stick to a rigid system of morals and, rather, update our moral system as we gain more experience in life, and as the world as a whole changes due to technological evolution, political events and so on.
    Religion does not really account for that; it states immovable moral principles that are supposed to be applicable universally. And while there are religions that are, in principle, based on continuous self-improvement, such as modern Buddhism, the very way that self-improvement is constructed itself is immovable and applicable universally. I believe that this is a very wrong approach, and it makes people easily exploitable by power-hungry leaders, who can unite large groups of people under a single banner based on shared moral views and unwillingness to question them - and this is how theocracies are born. This is something that other authoritarian ideologies invite too, such as socialism or nationalism - but secular ideologies, at least, are open to criticism, while religious ones typically vilify criticism or, at best, strongly limit the range of allowed questions.

    I also do not think that ideologies should be considered separately from power groups wielding them; both are important ingredients of human behavior. Can an ideology on its own, without any power groups involved, lead a person to become a criminal and human rights violator? Absolutely; however, it is somewhat unlikely, no matter what the ideology is. By the same token, a power group with no ideology imposed on people does not really have a societal framework to subdue people under; power groups always need some form of a moral or an intellectual justification of their authoritarian actions. The marriage of a power group and an ideology that is somewhat prone to supporting authoritarianism and collectivism - that is the deadly combination that is arguably responsible for nearly all large scale human suffering in human history.

    As an abstract thinker, I am very strongly opposed to following any religions. I do not have anything against religious people and do not see them as inferior to me in any way, but I do think that they are making a mistake. In order to come to rational conclusions, one has to start with a rational intellectual framework, and I do not see religion as such. Granted, religious morals can become an inspiration for a more solid fundamental system of views, but religion should never be used as the source of such a system.

    I would refrain, however, from making the claim that religions in themselves are more prone to make regular people into criminals, than other ideologies. I think that what makes people into criminals is lack of self-responsibility and integrity - same aspects of human character that make us procrastinate, lie, be late for work, etc. When we make it into a habit to cut corners everywhere in exchange for short-term gain, then we start automatically look for more ways to cut corners and get progressively bigger and bigger rewards for progressively easier and easier life choices. From there, the way to becoming a criminal is well lit.
    A given interpretation of religion may or may not allow its follower(s) to cut corners. In the latter case, the problem comes when the follower is a hypocrite, who formally follows religion, but allows themselves to make exceptions from the values they allegedly champion in exchange for short-term gain. And when a whole society in a given theocratic system is one consisting mostly of hypocrites, then massive issues with crime and human right violations are imminent.

    I should also note that there are some interpretations of religion that directly support crime and human right violations. The version of Islam that ISIS fighters follow, for example, is one such interpretation. The religion itself tells its followers that it is okay to kill and enslave as many people as they can, in exchange for some allegedly higher principle. Such religions have absolutely no place in the human world and must be called out and purged with extreme prejudice.
    I would argue that all versions of Islam championed by Middle Eastern governments are such religions, but, unfortunately, it becomes increasingly difficult to make this argument now that Islam has become such a controversial topic on the West.
  • DeeDee 1101 Pts
    edited December 3
    @Happy_Killbot

    ***** . It is undeniable that many authoritarian regimes use religion as a tool to control the people, which is why government and religion being intertwined is one indicator of fascism.

    I’m from a country that in the past the Catholic Church completely controlled the the citizens through religion the thing is the majority of the population was Catholic , people were victimized , brutalised and discriminated against and all was seen as morally correct and just for the reason that any political party that came to power was made up of Catholics and the teachings of such were part of who they were and informed  every decision they made.

    ****Just because authoritarian regimes do evil things and sometimes use religion doesn't necessarily prove that it is the regime which is leading to all these abuses including increased crime and human rights violations, and not the religion which it uses or controls. We haven't ruled out the possibility that both religion and hegemonic powers commit abuses.

    Both commit abuses but again if one nowadays is born and raised a Muslim and gets involved in politics one is going to base most every political decision on Sharia law as a fair amount of Muslims do , they are not abusing their religion in any way they are following the teachings as written to the letter in the Quran.

    In my country unmarried mothers were deemed immoral scum , children born out of wedlock were “bastards “ , gays were jailed all this was according to Catholic teachings and was not an abuse of religion but merely an implementation of the written word 

    ****So how might we determine for sure that this is the case, that authoritarian regimes do bad things

    Authoritarian regimes  use religion  because mostly they claim to be religious themselves and it’s always been used to control the masses , it’s like Muslims have a collective identity when it comes to one thing and that’s Islam the same with Catholics etc, etc 

    Authoritarian regimes also do not need religion to do bad things in a fair few cases instead they use some other appeal to a common goal picked and packaged by the leadership to appeal to the masses as in Stalinism , or Hitlers appeal to citizens of the idea of German identity and it’s superiority  

    ****and associate with religion which has occasionally taken the blame, as opposed to religion doing bad things independently of hegemonic powers?

    They are really hand and glove to me anyway in a lot of cases , one is as bad as the the other the two together are lethal 


    Happy_Killbot
  • TKDB said:
    @Happy_Killbot

    And, Im sorry for saying this, but I'm not wracking my brain, with your Atheist Teachings, because it's not worth the waste of my time, being that I'm an Independent Thinker.
    Ok, goodbye then. I don't know why you feel the need to tell us you aren't going to try, we don't care.
    PlaffelvohfenZeusAres42
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • @MayCaesar More good points, although one thing that you maybe would like to consider is whether the ideology is causing the change in behavior or the structures it is creating is what is causing the behavior as an emergent property of the ideology.

    For example, communist ideology persuaded governments to take control of all the companies and businesses and mismanage them, leading to increased starvation, crime, and general disruption like what we have seen in the USSR and Venezuela. In this case the criminal behavior is not a result of the ideology but rather of the policies created under the influence of that ideology.

    Personally, I think that there is only a very small fraction of people that are true criminals, that is to say they are mentally deranged in just the right way that they are a danger to society purely by nature. The overwhelming majority of criminals are made that way by their environment in ways that a superior society could avoid with ease. For example, if you ask for the life stories of death row inmates, they are all shockingly similar. Raised in a broken home, lived on low income, violent tendencies in school, dropped out of high school or college, took part in illegal businesses, drug abuse, associated with organized crime, and finally murder and subsequent arrest. We could potentially save billions of dollars a year and save lives if we prevented these kinds of people from maturing into criminality.

    If religion is the danger, then I would expect it to be in a way like this. For example the Christian and Muslim religions make homosexuality illegal, which leads to criminalized outlets under which homosexuals must live their lives. This might alienate them from society and lead to increased overall crime from other sources, by gradually creating criminal networks that would be opposed to that society.
    MayCaesar
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • TKDBTKDB 355 Pts
    @Dee

    I read through this information, and nowhere, within its very own wording, did I (See) any references towards Religion? 

    So in viewing the "Perception," from the Wikipedia website in regards to (Hegemony.)

    Verses how @Happy_Killbot expressed his "perception," 

    I view his perception as being, slightly unfounded, or in other words, the Wikipedia Hegemony discussion, or information, is unable to support his individual argument.

    That's why his argument is unfounded, and unsupportable.

    Happy_KillbotPlaffelvohfenZeusAres42Dee
  • TKDBTKDB 355 Pts
    edited December 3
    @Happy_Killbot

    Who is this US, or We, that you're referring to?

    "Ok, goodbye then. I don't know why you feel the need to tell us you aren't going to try, we don't care."

    Because I do care, being that I'm pro Family, pro Religious Freedom, (pro Atheist, provided that any Atheist, is fair and equal with their individual Atheist arguments,) and pro Community.

    And the Wikipedia page that I shared with this forum, (In regards to the Hegemony discussion,) for some reason, doesn't seem to support your individually stated, "Hegemony," argument.



    Happy_KillbotPlaffelvohfenZeusAres42Dee
  • @Dee I agree that in the past and in the present that religion has been used to justify the atrocities committed by authoritarian regimes or hegemonic powers, but as you say "They are really hand and glove to me anyway in a lot of cases" This analogy gives a good representation of the theory i stated in above, but it still leaves critical aspects unanswered.

    The catholic church acted as a hegemonic power during the crusades. Before it had that kind of power, it was rather benign, which gives evidence supporting the theory that hegemony is the true detractor of humanity, and religion was a crony and benefactor in that rise to power. I think there is definitely strong evidence here, everything lines up in a way that makes it seem like it should be true, and this would have some incredible implications if it is.

    If this is the case, then it means that the road to a more free an equitable society that takes human rights seriously isn't to go after religion, but rather to neuter it by toppling authoritarian regimes and replacing them with democratic ones, and religion will just slowly die out over time taking with it the justification for immoral acts.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • @TKDB

    I don't think you know what my argument is. The wikipedia page neither supports nor retracts from my argument in any way. My argument is technically pro-religion, in case you didn't notice.


     Goodbye.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • DeeDee 1101 Pts
    edited December 3
    @TKDB

    ****I read through this information, and nowhere, within its very own wording, did I (See) any references towards Religion? 

    So in viewing the "Perception," from the Wikipedia website in regards to (Hegemony.)

    Verses how @Happy_Killbot expressed his "perception," 

    I view his perception as being, slightly unfounded, or in other words, the Wikipedia Hegemony discussion, or information, is unable to *****

    support his individual argument.


    Ok what’s his “individual argument “ then in your own words?


    *****That's why his argument is unfounded, and unsupportable.

    Surely if such was the case you could easily state what parts are unfounded and what parts are unsupportable?


    I bet you won’t  address what I ask because you haven’t a clue what the debate is about do you?





    Happy_KillbotTKDB
  • DeeDee 1101 Pts
    @Happy_Killbot

    *****The catholic church acted as a hegemonic power during the crusades. Before it had that kind of power, it was rather benign


    I guess it’s like any group it’s power and strength comes from its numbers 



    ****which gives evidence supporting the theory that hegemony is the true detractor of humanity, and religion was a crony and benefactor in that rise to power. 


    Let’s take what I think you and I agree on an acceptable definition of Hegemony .....


    Hegemony, the dominance of one group over another, often supported by legitimating norms and ideas. ... The associated term hegemon is used to identify the actor, group, class, or state that exercises hegemonic power or that is responsible for the dissemination of hegemonic ideas.


    Any religion will seek dominance over others the battle was always for followers , as a former Catholic we always called ourselves “The one true faith”.

    If we don’t use religion to dominate society we will use something else we find common ground on isn’t this always the way? 


    Before any government no matter how authoritarian is put together there has to be some common ground that holds that group together I don’t think it matters to the population that much what that ground is if their suffering is similar in all  cases 


    If populations hadn’t got hegemony they would in cases demand it , take Northern Island in particular in the past , Protestant hegemony was used and supported by the British government and population to keep the Catholic miniority  subdued and second class citizens , the majority Protestants wanted this and wouldn’t have it any other way 



    ****I think there is definitely strong evidence here, everything lines up in a way that makes it seem like it should be true, and this would have some incredible implications if it is.


    Give me some examples please 




    **** If this is the case, then it means that the road to a more free an equitable society that takes human rights seriously isn't to go after religion, but rather to neuter it 


    The Catholic Church is well and truly neutered in my country where it held power for centuries , it’s lost its teeth in most countries.


    The reason religions loose power to me anyway is that like everything they have  to evolve or die , the church has changed its stance on just about everything in the last 100 years , homosexuality , pregnancy out of marriage , couple living together outside marriage etc , etc just as societal morality evolves the religious do only more slowly the same process is happening Islam only a lot slower it seems.


    Religions have to move with society or perish and it’s happening as we speak 


    **** by toppling authoritarian regimes and replacing them with democratic ones, and religion will just slowly die out over time taking with it the justification for immoral acts.



    I must say I admire your optimism for democratic governments , I think no matter how democratic they are just as capable of deeply immoral acts and will always find justifications for such 




  • @Dee The more I think about this the more I realize that the lines are blurred at all levels and all throughout time.

    A religion that acts to make itself the "one true religion" and acts to suppress other beliefs or spread to as many people as possible is acting to gain as much influence as possible, and this could come with other things such as desire to gain power, land, labor, resources, etc. This could also be the will of the people, who are acting in spite of religion to obtain these things.

    We also have examples of groups fighting for no reason other than they did not share the same religious beliefs. In these situations, it may be very easy to claim that they are not acting to gain power, land, labor, or resources.

    However, you can turn this assumption on it's head if you assume that people's minds are a resource, and treat religion/culture/ideas the way one might treat an organism.

    In this case, individual Religions are acting in a way to maximize their survival chance, in other words they endured memetic evolution to become a form that is better equipped to survive.

    If this is true, then hegemonic powers are still dangerous, but that doesn't matter because religion has hegemonic tenancies related to it's own selfish desire to spread, and on occasion the two have aligned, leading to human rights abuses that was mutually beneficial.

    I think this goes to show why the question of this random commentator is driving me nuts, because there just doesn't seem to be a right answer here but the details contradict, Which means I am missing an assumption or have a wrong one.

    If authoritarian regimes adopt religions then do a lot of bad stuff before using religion to justify these evils, then we can not claim religion is dangerous.

    If religions developed in a way to become hegemonic, and inspired/aligned with authoritarian regimes, then we can conclude that religion is dangerous.

    I can't think of any way to reconcile these differences.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation, Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root and developed into the human race, who conquered fire, built societies and developed technology .
    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • DeeDee 1101 Pts
    edited December 4
    @Happy_Killbot

    *****The more I think about this the more I realize that the lines are blurred at all levels and all throughout time.


    A religion that acts to make itself the "one true religion" and acts to suppress other beliefs or spread to as many people as possible is acting to gain as much influence as possible, and this could come with other things such as desire to gain power, land, labor, resources, etc. This could also be the will of the people, who are acting in spite of religion to obtain these things.****


    We don’t need religions for Hegemony to take place it happens anyway once a group has a shared  vision , religion like shared political views are enough 


    *****We also have examples of groups fighting for no reason other than they did not share the same religious beliefs. In these situations, it may be very easy to claim that they are not acting to gain power, land, labor, or resources.***g


    I think it’s always about these things otherwise why the fighting? If one was truly religious this would never happen as they collectively tell us the message is one of love and peace yet they act and do the total opposite to what they proclaim, it’s all about dominance , I think anyway 


    *****However, you can turn this assumption on it's head if you assume that people's minds are a resource, and treat religion/culture/ideas the way one might treat an organism

    In this case, individual Religions are acting in a way to maximize their survival chance, in other words they endured memetic evolution to become a form that is better equipped to survive.****


    Yes everything is evolving 


    ****If this is true, then hegemonic powers are still dangerous, but that doesn't matter because religion has hegemonic tenancies related to it's own selfish desire to spread, and on occasion the two have aligned, leading to human rights abuses that was mutually beneficial.****b


    Yes they are a danger to you and I but yet the ones administering such will claim it’s  for the “common good” , you and I would be deemed a danger if in power by a large proportion of certainly American Christians and no doubt branded Commie Anti American  traitors 


    *****I think this goes to show why the question of this random commentator is driving me nuts, because there just doesn't seem to be a right answer here but the details contradict, Which means I am missing an assumption or have a wrong one.****



    He stated .... a lot of the abuses you identify, and I would say the majority correctly in Christianity are actually common abuses of holding hegemonic power in general regardless of the one who is holding the power... Are you filtering for that? As a critique of hegemonic power in general as opposed to a specifically religious hegemonic power" 



    All dominant groups will be accused of abuses the example I give regards you and I in power where we would no doubt be accused of demonizing Christians if we asked for separation of state and church and making the teaching of Evolution compulsory would probably get us lynched.


    I think you would agree we would be doing it out of what we see as perfectly reasonable reasons , how do we resolve this? 


    ****If authoritarian regimes adopt religions then do a lot of bad stuff before using religion to justify these evils, then we can not claim religion is dangerous.*****


    They really don’t have to use religion as such in fact the hard line religious nuts as in the case of Muslims and Christians are actually following their sacred books teachings to the letter historically this was not a problem but successive generations of believers have softened the teachings to be more palatable to each new generation of believers thus another example of evolving societal morality 


    ****If religions developed in a way to become hegemonic, and inspired/aligned with authoritarian regimes, then we can conclude that religion is dangerous.I can't think of any way to reconcile these differences.****



    In thinking about such situations I always think of the marvelous book lord of the flies and how factions and groups form amongst a small group of people on an island , if You and I were dropped on such an Island with 50 others I guarantee within 1 year a controlling group would emerge and no doubt be accused of Hegemony 


    It is I’m afraid a dog eat  dog world , eat or be eaten 

  • @MayCaesar More good points, although one thing that you maybe would like to consider is whether the ideology is causing the change in behavior or the structures it is creating is what is causing the behavior as an emergent property of the ideology.

    For example, communist ideology persuaded governments to take control of all the companies and businesses and mismanage them, leading to increased starvation, crime, and general disruption like what we have seen in the USSR and Venezuela. In this case the criminal behavior is not a result of the ideology but rather of the policies created under the influence of that ideology.

    Personally, I think that there is only a very small fraction of people that are true criminals, that is to say they are mentally deranged in just the right way that they are a danger to society purely by nature. The overwhelming majority of criminals are made that way by their environment in ways that a superior society could avoid with ease. For example, if you ask for the life stories of death row inmates, they are all shockingly similar. Raised in a broken home, lived on low income, violent tendencies in school, dropped out of high school or college, took part in illegal businesses, drug abuse, associated with organized crime, and finally murder and subsequent arrest. We could potentially save billions of dollars a year and save lives if we prevented these kinds of people from maturing into criminality.

    If religion is the danger, then I would expect it to be in a way like this. For example the Christian and Muslim religions make homosexuality illegal, which leads to criminalized outlets under which homosexuals must live their lives. This might alienate them from society and lead to increased overall crime from other sources, by gradually creating criminal networks that would be opposed to that society.
    This is a valid point, although I believe that it is somewhat interchangeable with the point I made. It is true that the government can cause criminal behavior, but by the same token government itself is a product of that behavior. Awful governmental policies are only allowed by people when people have a certain predisposition for such policies. I do not believe that communist or fascist policies can be viable in a society with healthy culture and economy; there have to be some dramatic circumstances that would cause people to close their eyes on the crimes of the regime and not hold their government to a higher standard.

    With regard to the second point, I agree, but this argument can be used to explain away any human behavior in principle. We are all products of our environments, and while our environments do not define us completely and we do have power to resist their influence, I do not believe that it is possible to completely block all influence of one's environment on their psychology and moral system.
    For whatever reasons, some people become criminals and others do not. Criminals always have a dark background leading them to the life of an outlaw, but then many people with a similarly dark background never become criminals. Something else is at play here, although the background is definitely a factor.

    I think that religion in itself is neither harmful nor helpful, and it all depends on the way in which the religion is tied to the culture. People in Qatar and people in Saudi Arabia follow largely the same religion, yet the outcomes are very different. The main source of this difference, is my opinion, is the fact that the Qatari people look into the future and take action that will bring out a better one, while the Saudi Arabian people prefer to stick to their traditions at the expense of the possible progress. Now, why this is the case, I do not fully know. But what is clear is that the same religion can lead to very different societies, and crime may arise from religion in many different ways, depending on the circumstances.
  • TKDBTKDB 355 Pts
    @Dee

    Would your Atheist way of LIFE, make my life better? 

Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch