Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

How come religion is always Fascistic?

FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2012 3:36:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
That is to say, why must it's primary tenets always come from a central source, such as God or a Pope? Why wouldn't there, for say, be a democratic religion, which votes on what it believes?

You may make the case that the religious person views their ideals as objective and thus finds it most natural to place them on a single inerrant source. But would that still really account for the vastness for which Fascism accounts for religious social order? Is there more to it?

In-fact, there are only three religions I can actually think of which do not fit into this form of structure, Unitarian Universalism, Discordianism and Science. These three actually take on a form of Anarchism, with their ideals arising out of decentralized consensus, putting them on a completely different and opposing plain from all the others. What happened to all the bagillions of middle grounds that politics so likes to play around with?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2012 4:54:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Oh, look! It's the bump truck!

-----|¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨|
-----|BUUUUUUUUMP|||'|""\_
-----|______________|||_|__|)<
-----!(@)"****!(@)*****!(@)
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2012 5:09:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/22/2012 3:36:25 AM, FREEDO wrote:
That is to say, why must it's primary tenets always come from a central source, such as God or a Pope? Why wouldn't there, for say, be a democratic religion, which votes on what it believes?

Christianity: Council of Nicea

You may make the case that the religious person views their ideals as objective and thus finds it most natural to place them on a single inerrant source. But would that still really account for the vastness for which Fascism accounts for religious social order? Is there more to it?

In-fact, there are only three religions I can actually think of which do not fit into this form of structure, Unitarian Universalism, Discordianism and Science.

You forgot Buddhism and Taoism. Neither of these dictate what you believe but rather ask that you take the journey yourself. The catch is that you will come to the sane conclusion that the founders have, but at least you saw and experienced yourself those truths.

.
.
.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2012 5:17:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/22/2012 5:09:35 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 3/22/2012 3:36:25 AM, FREEDO wrote:
That is to say, why must it's primary tenets always come from a central source, such as God or a Pope? Why wouldn't there, for say, be a democratic religion, which votes on what it believes?

Christianity: Council of Nicea

That was more of just a single event. I have seen any revotes.

You may make the case that the religious person views their ideals as objective and thus finds it most natural to place them on a single inerrant source. But would that still really account for the vastness for which Fascism accounts for religious social order? Is there more to it?

In-fact, there are only three religions I can actually think of which do not fit into this form of structure, Unitarian Universalism, Discordianism and Science.

You forgot Buddhism and Taoism. Neither of these dictate what you believe but rather ask that you take the journey yourself. The catch is that you will come to the sane conclusion that the founders have, but at least you saw and experienced yourself those truths.

This is true. Though I wouldn't say, at all, that they all come to the same conclusion.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2012 1:22:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
In anticipation of the overly-religious people who get pissed off really easily to see this thread and go ape-sh1t.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2012 1:40:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/23/2012 1:22:07 AM, Zaradi wrote:
In anticipation of the overly-religious people who get pissed off really easily to see this thread and go ape-sh1t.

Oh, I think most of the active religious people here are well mannered. They get driven out like a demon if they aren't.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2012 1:52:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The answer is pretty simple. In fact you mentioned it in your earlier post. These religions hold their teachings as objective truth. Consensus is irrelevant.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2012 1:59:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/22/2012 3:36:25 AM, FREEDO wrote:

Why wouldn't there, for say, be a democratic religion, which votes on what it believes?

LOL Give it a little while, and there probably will be. However, Christianity is not and never has been a democracy.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
imabench
Posts: 21,219
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2012 2:15:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/22/2012 3:36:25 AM, FREEDO wrote:
That is to say, why must it's primary tenets always come from a central source, such as God or a Pope? Why wouldn't there, for say, be a democratic religion, which votes on what it believes?

You may make the case that the religious person views their ideals as objective and thus finds it most natural to place them on a single inerrant source. But would that still really account for the vastness for which Fascism accounts for religious social order? Is there more to it?

In-fact, there are only three religions I can actually think of which do not fit into this form of structure, Unitarian Universalism, Discordianism and Science. These three actually take on a form of Anarchism, with their ideals arising out of decentralized consensus, putting them on a completely different and opposing plain from all the others. What happened to all the bagillions of middle grounds that politics so likes to play around with?

I never thought that science could be a religion.... But now im entertained by such a thought
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2012 2:27:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/23/2012 2:15:55 AM, imabench wrote:
At 3/22/2012 3:36:25 AM, FREEDO wrote:
That is to say, why must it's primary tenets always come from a central source, such as God or a Pope? Why wouldn't there, for say, be a democratic religion, which votes on what it believes?

You may make the case that the religious person views their ideals as objective and thus finds it most natural to place them on a single inerrant source. But would that still really account for the vastness for which Fascism accounts for religious social order? Is there more to it?

In-fact, there are only three religions I can actually think of which do not fit into this form of structure, Unitarian Universalism, Discordianism and Science. These three actually take on a form of Anarchism, with their ideals arising out of decentralized consensus, putting them on a completely different and opposing plain from all the others. What happened to all the bagillions of middle grounds that politics so likes to play around with?

I never thought that science could be a religion.... But now im entertained by such a thought

Thank you very much, I'll be here all week.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2012 2:38:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/22/2012 3:36:25 AM, FREEDO wrote:
That is to say, why must it's primary tenets always come from a central source, such as God or a Pope? Why wouldn't there, for say, be a democratic religion, which votes on what it believes?

You may make the case that the religious person views their ideals as objective and thus finds it most natural to place them on a single inerrant source. But would that still really account for the vastness for which Fascism accounts for religious social order? Is there more to it?

In-fact, there are only three religions I can actually think of which do not fit into this form of structure, Unitarian Universalism, Discordianism and Science. These three actually take on a form of Anarchism, with their ideals arising out of decentralized consensus, putting them on a completely different and opposing plain from all the others. What happened to all the bagillions of middle grounds that politics so likes to play around with?

It seems that religion just tends toward being "fascistic" because of the objective aspect you brought up. From the point of view of any given religious person, their religion is reality. To an outsider, it seems like a fascistic artificial structure through which one views the world-but of course it would. And to an insider, it just is and vice versa, always vice versa. It reminds me of the fact that almost any group, from the marines to a religion to clubs to schools, etc., could all be considered cults in one way or another. It just depends on how you spin it, I suppose.

And you bring up those three worldviews as examples of anarchic worldviews. I'd counter that it's possible but difficult for humans to achieve anarchic worldviews- at least at this point in time in the Western world. An anarchic worldview requires us to accept our uncertainty about the world and our place in it and disallows us from easily being part of a tightly knit group of people who see eye-to-eye on a fundamental level. In my limited experience as a human, it seems those two things are most difficult yet most important to give up-certainty and the comfort and support of being a small part of something larger. What is religion, generally, but those two things in one convenient package?
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2012 2:40:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/23/2012 2:38:20 AM, Oryus wrote:
At 3/22/2012 3:36:25 AM, FREEDO wrote:
That is to say, why must it's primary tenets always come from a central source, such as God or a Pope? Why wouldn't there, for say, be a democratic religion, which votes on what it believes?

You may make the case that the religious person views their ideals as objective and thus finds it most natural to place them on a single inerrant source. But would that still really account for the vastness for which Fascism accounts for religious social order? Is there more to it?

In-fact, there are only three religions I can actually think of which do not fit into this form of structure, Unitarian Universalism, Discordianism and Science. These three actually take on a form of Anarchism, with their ideals arising out of decentralized consensus, putting them on a completely different and opposing plain from all the others. What happened to all the bagillions of middle grounds that politics so likes to play around with?

It seems that religion just tends toward being "fascistic" because of the objective aspect you brought up. From the point of view of any given religious person, their religion is reality. To an outsider, it seems like a fascistic artificial structure through which one views the world-but of course it would. And to an insider, it just is and vice versa, always vice versa. It reminds me of the fact that almost any group, from the marines to a religion to clubs to schools, etc., could all be considered cults in one way or another. It just depends on how you spin it, I suppose.

And you bring up those three worldviews as examples of anarchic worldviews. I'd counter that it's possible but difficult for humans to achieve anarchic worldviews- at least at this point in time in the Western world. An anarchic worldview requires us to accept our uncertainty about the world and our place in it and disallows us from easily being part of a tightly knit group of people who see eye-to-eye on a fundamental level. In my limited experience as a human, it seems those two things are most difficult yet most important to give up-certainty and the comfort and support of being a small part of something larger. What is religion, generally, but those two things in one convenient package?

In my limited experience as a human. Sounds like a very fine mantra to repeat before any declarative statement.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2012 2:43:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/23/2012 2:40:39 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/23/2012 2:38:20 AM, Oryus wrote:
At 3/22/2012 3:36:25 AM, FREEDO wrote:
That is to say, why must it's primary tenets always come from a central source, such as God or a Pope? Why wouldn't there, for say, be a democratic religion, which votes on what it believes?

You may make the case that the religious person views their ideals as objective and thus finds it most natural to place them on a single inerrant source. But would that still really account for the vastness for which Fascism accounts for religious social order? Is there more to it?

In-fact, there are only three religions I can actually think of which do not fit into this form of structure, Unitarian Universalism, Discordianism and Science. These three actually take on a form of Anarchism, with their ideals arising out of decentralized consensus, putting them on a completely different and opposing plain from all the others. What happened to all the bagillions of middle grounds that politics so likes to play around with?

It seems that religion just tends toward being "fascistic" because of the objective aspect you brought up. From the point of view of any given religious person, their religion is reality. To an outsider, it seems like a fascistic artificial structure through which one views the world-but of course it would. And to an insider, it just is and vice versa, always vice versa. It reminds me of the fact that almost any group, from the marines to a religion to clubs to schools, etc., could all be considered cults in one way or another. It just depends on how you spin it, I suppose.

And you bring up those three worldviews as examples of anarchic worldviews. I'd counter that it's possible but difficult for humans to achieve anarchic worldviews- at least at this point in time in the Western world. An anarchic worldview requires us to accept our uncertainty about the world and our place in it and disallows us from easily being part of a tightly knit group of people who see eye-to-eye on a fundamental level. In my limited experience as a human, it seems those two things are most difficult yet most important to give up-certainty and the comfort and support of being a small part of something larger. What is religion, generally, but those two things in one convenient package?

In my limited experience as a human. Sounds like a very fine mantra to repeat before any declarative statement.

It most certainly is. It should be assumed.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.