This is a subverse designed to encourage adult discussion spanning the entirety of the political spectrum. All are welcome, from Libertarians to Authoritarians, Democrats to Republicans, An Caps to Anarchists, Socialists to Fascists to Communists, Green, Blue, Black, White, Purple with Yellow Polka dots, whatever color, persuasion, or affiliation, this is a place for you to post your thoughts, articles, and engage in discussion meant to foster understanding.
Politics is best when we try to avoid personal attacks, limits on discussion, censorship, trolling, shilling, racism, homophobia, antisemitism, or any other forms of bigotry and malfeasance.
Election 2020 Politics Sticky
Politics 2017 Christmas Theme sticky
Nov 2016 sticky on new CSS
This subverse belongs to the community of users. Users are invited to post meta-threads about v/politics and I will gladly sticky them. @flyawayhigh
Use the "Report Spam" link to report spam and someone will review the report. J-mods have the ability to remove duplicate noncommercial spam.
v/politics is for all politics.
v/uspolitics is for US politics only.
v/worldpolitics is for international or non-US politics.
v/politicalnews is dedicated to virtually censor-free politics and news
v/news is for news around the world.
v/usnews is for domestic news only.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] Kurplow 1 point 0 points 1 point (+1|-1) ago (edited ago)
I didn't say the left had any sort of monopoly on reason--I know better--but this article is incredibly tedious, and so is arguing with you. The part of the left that does habitually appeal to reason finds a paucity of valid counter argument. No one can argue from facts and with logic as to why we should tolerate any sort of influence from supernatural religion in government or social policy, just as one example. I appeal to reason, the religious do not and cannot.
By the way, it is impossible that you haven't realized the author is describing the exact same, smug sense of intellectual authority with which you constantly regard leftists in general. I hope you can take a moment to realize just how often you resort to immediately ridiculing those you disagree with. Rightists in general do this constantly. Consider for a moment how many times you've used or read the word Libtard (or how often you have called Sanders senile, or uneducated, because he disagrees with you on economic terms).
[–] BoiseNTheHood [S] 1 point 0 points 1 point (+1|-1) ago
That's a remarkably closed-minded and simplistic view. I agree that religion when taken to extremes should not influence the law. But I don't see it as reasonable to dismiss all of it entirely either. The Constitution - one of the most important documents in world history - was influenced in some ways by religion. Our bottom-up republican form of government had its roots in the system of "presbyteries" established by Reformed churches during the Reformation. Religion set the template for the American Revolution, played a key role in educating the colonists, and later helped movements like abolitionism and the civil rights movement. Without any religious influence at all, this country would be in a much different (and probably worse) place. So no, you are not appealing to reason when you write off religion as a force for good.
[–] Kurplow 1 point 0 points 1 point (+1|-1) ago (edited ago)
But I am, nothing you said offers any valid reason to think that religion should play any role whatsoever today. Religion is not the source of moral intuition, religion is kept in check by moral intuition. Religion is not the source of education, and certainly not of real, applicable knowledge of the world, instead religion is kept in check by science. Religion is not the source of charitability, it merely occupies a place of unjustified lack of scrutiny among charitable organizations. None of the good done by religion requires religion.
However, religion does motivate others to do considerable harm, and never for logical or rational reasons. From stem cell research bans, to abstinence mandates in anti-aids aid money being sent to Africa, to the opposition of the HPV vaccine that occurred under the the Bush administration--all religiously motivated, and all resulting in unnecessary loss of life to preventable and treatable diseases--there are numerous and well argued downsides to letting people's irrational beliefs dictate public policy. I have only scratched the surface here.
I need to take a moment in retrospect to address your abolitionism argument: while it is true that abolitionists tried to use scripture to justify abolition, they were on the losing side of a theological argument and they knew it, if you go back to rhetoric from the time, the Bible was likewise mustered into service by anti-abolitionists, who had far more pro-slavery verses to draw from than there were anti-slavery verses (only one I know of) for abolitionists to choose from.
Edit: one last thought--you're essentially arguing that it is not rational (appealing to reason) to argue that faith-based religion (by definition, belief without reason) is not a valid way of asking and answering questions of supreme importance in society. Think about that.