Does the religious right own the right?

MayCaesar

They definitely are gaining the ground here in the US. I listen to all kinds of intellectuals, and Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro are the two of them (both I quite dislike, but listening to intelligent people who I dislike I find to be necessary for my intellectual development) - and ever since Jordan Peterson joined the Daily Wire, I get bombarded with religious ads. "No, goddamn it, I do not need your 'prayer app'. Just take me back to the conversation!" I have seen a similar transformation with many other intellectuals, who used to either not care about religion much or did not push it down other people's throats, but nowadays talk about it all the time.

Part of it appears to be a reaction to the craziness on the "left": people find escape from all the new age nonsense in the old traditional teachings. Another part is people's loss of the sense of meaning which religion (falsely, arguably) provides.

I do not think that they have a real shot at capturing the Republican party - younger generations are increasingly indifferent/hostile towards religion, and their votes need to be won over - but it certainly is an unpleasant development.

MayCaesar

@Factfinder

I seriously doubt that superstitions will ever go away entirely: they do serve a pretty important function, closing the gap between ignorance and knowledge. I would expect them to become a little less... shamanistic though. Maybe 100 years from now people will not knock on the wood or refrain from whistling in a house, but they might be afraid of sentient magnetic fields or whatever.

At the very least, until there exists a strong philosophical critique of superstitions that the majority of the global population has accepted, they are unlikely to disappear, no matter how socially enlightened and technologically advanced we become.

Bogan

They don't own me.    i support western civilisation, and much of our culture is based around the Protestant religious values which have long been a major part of our civilisation.     So, I am mostly in accord with Protestant Christians of the Right, but not always.       .    

Factfinder

Sorry @Bogan But's let's be clear upfront, "Owned" in this case does not refer to monetary applications but psychological applications that cause blindness during voting practices. Your response does not persuade me because of the fact you admit you go along with Protestant Christians 'mostly'.

Factfinder

We all know both sides of the isle take money from special interest. So that's not what I'm talking about. I'm referring to a blind allegiance of religious advocates imposing doctrinal influence on governmental policy creating a theocratical hold in politics and by extension  government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_right ; Are republicans as susceptible to this influence as democrats are to the failed ideology of marxism?

Factfinder

You do make an excellent argument @MayCaesar ;

Do you think we need to end prayer session say, when congress convenes? On the world stage it must look as silly as opposing football teams praying for guidance and victory. It changes nothing. There is no evidence that people swearing to tell the truth and the whole truth in court trials has any effect on whether they actually do tell the truth. We aren't a theocracy, so why have we engrained this nonsense into our procedures?  

MichaelElpers

@Factfinder

Id say no more than any idealogies than the left holds.

There most certainly are conservative christian religious people who would never vote for a side that supports abortion or gay marriage and primarily point solely religion to do so.
This is certainly anecdotal but ive really only seen one conservative or this site (rickyd) who reacts this way.  Most others never point to religious beliefs for support of an argument.

Many progressives on this site however cannot get past the blindness of viewing people in there collective hierarchy and any opposing view as some sort intent to oppress. Additionally the more oppressed you are in the collectivist structure the more valuable your argument.
 Simple name calling and headline posting is all thats needed and in my view is part of the same coin.

MayCaesar

Factfinder said:

You do make an excellent argument @MayCaesar ;

Do you think we need to end prayer session say, when congress convenes? On the world stage it must look as silly as opposing football teams praying for guidance and victory. It changes nothing. There is no evidence that people swearing to tell the truth and the whole truth in court trials has any effect on whether they actually do tell the truth. We aren't a theocracy, so why have we engrained this nonsense into our procedures?  

I am conflicted on this. I think that there is a certain value to verbal claims. Saying openly, "I swear to tell the truth...", puts a social obligation on you, and while I am not aware of any hard data on this, empirically I would expect it to make the individual far more aware of the potential consequences of not telling the truth, than if they just began being asked questions without any pretext.

At the same time, a lot of these rituals involve phrasing that either assumes a particular ideology, or just does not make a lot of sense. On the wedding it is common to hear one or another variation of "forever together", even though objectively everybody knows that no marriage is guaranteed to be permanent, that people can change over time and start resenting each other and wanting to be apart.

I suppose I am okay with these rituals being there, but I do not think that participating in them should be mandatory. And when it involves specific religions/ideologies, there should be no place for it in the public space.

Factfinder

@MichaelElpers

Hi Michael.

You have a good point. I haven't seen arguments to the effect of the christian right on this site. I wonder if that'd be different had trump never was president? He appears to me anyway, to have taken the sails out of what used to be routine leftists arguments. To some degree some on the right as well. 

I can't agree with just leaving the rituals in place however. In doing that we are by default holding one particular religion above the rest. 

Factfinder

@MayCaesar

Yeah I'm not conflicted on it for reasons you actually cite. What bible is used? What other religions are allowed to be represented in these rituals? No we do not need them. However I see your point about verbally swearing. Think that would have a similar effect if it just wasn't to a god?

MayCaesar

@Factfinder

It probably would even have a stronger effect on those who do not believe in the Abrahamic god, for they would not have to lie in their oath - however, I can see how actual monotheists would take the oath more seriously for they would be making it not just before themselves and other people, but the supremely important and authoritative being.

I know that for myself, it does matter in front of whom I promise to do something. I can tell a random stranger, "You know, I am planning to learn guitar this year", without really meaning it. But if I tell a very close friend, "Hey, I am planning to learn guitar this year", then I feel that I have committed to something; that I should have something to show by the end of the year if my friend asks me, "So, how is your guitar learning going?" It might be highly irrational, but for whatever reason we tend to take promises given to ourselves much lighter than promises given to others. 
In this context, giving a promise to god if one believes said god to be the ultimate omnipresent authority is not done lightly at all.

Factfinder

@MayCaesar

What you're saying makes sense. I'll have to think on it some more. Generally, a con on the witness stand, or in the halls of justice wouldn't take such an oath seriously. But it is something to consider. Perhaps eventually we will evolve and advance enough to put all superstitions behind us?

Factfinder

MayCaesar said:

@Factfinder

I seriously doubt that superstitions will ever go away entirely: they do serve a pretty important function, closing the gap between ignorance and knowledge. I would expect them to become a little less... shamanistic though. Maybe 100 years from now people will not knock on the wood or refrain from whistling in a house, but they might be afraid of sentient magnetic fields or whatever.

At the very least, until there exists a strong philosophical critique of superstitions that the majority of the global population has accepted, they are unlikely to disappear, no matter how socially enlightened and technologically advanced we become.

That's actually sad to think about. I believe superstations will always hold us back. Makes you really want to enjoy life now while we can.