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 →
[–] BoiseNTheHood [S] 1 point 0 points 1 point (+1|-1) ago
Again, not what I'm saying. I pointed out at the start that religion, when taken to extremes, is a bad influence. I didn't think I'd have to point out to you that blind faith and the intolerance and ignorance that come with it qualify as religion taken to extremes.
That being said, not every religious person is an [insert holy book here]-thumping bigot. There are plenty of people who see religion as an uplifting, positive community and a way to give back, and I guess I don't see that as a negative influence on society. You can feel free to bitch and moan every time the Salvation Army provides disaster relief in the third world or Habitat for Humanity puts a roof over someone's head, but don't expect most people to agree with you.
[–] Kurplow 1 point 0 points 1 point (+1|-1) ago
This isn't religion taken to extremes, this is the definition of belief. All faith is blind faith. You are saying that everyone who believes in a personal God, everyone who believes in the divine nature of the Bible, anyone who believes in an afterlife is a religious extremist. That just isn't the case. That is just religion.
The people who are trying to establish laws and policies according to religions beliefs often are extremists, but they garner support from the type of nominal religiosity you are (I think) attempting to appeal to. An [insert holy book here]-thumping bigot cannot oppose the HPV vaccine (or whatever) without using religion to garner popular support for the morally corrupt endeavor.
Again with the strawman. I don't care what private organizations do, for the most part. I care when politicians, donors, judges, etc fail to reason in a secular, reality-based way. "Because zygotes have souls" is not a valid anti-abortion argument, no matter what you think about whether abortion should be legal or not. "Because God spoke to me and told me to invade Iraq" is not a valid reason to invade Iraq, no matter what you think about the geopolitical environment.
Have I made myself clear yet? Good, secular reasons for public policy--keep faith out of the discourse regarding government. This is nothing but an appeal to reason, and any assertion to the contrary must logically be eschewing rationality in favor of some irrational belief.
[–] BoiseNTheHood [S] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)
Yes, it is religion taken to extremes, and you know it. If all belief in religion was equally extreme, or blind, or whatever you'd like to call it, then there'd be no difference between Jainism and the Westboro Baptist Church. There'd also be no difference between Unitarians and Westboro Baptist, or between moderate Muslims and radical Muslims, etc. Surely you can see how absurd this is.
Sure, if they're advocating for extreme policies. And I agree, when religious extremists hide behind their holy book in order to justify advocating for/passing laws that hurt people, it's immoral, irrational and wrong. Of course, the same could be said for the anti-vax or anti-GMO extremists who point to their twisted version of science in order to justify denying people access to vital medicine and food, yet nobody ever points to them as evidence that science should not have any influence at all on society.
All I've been saying from the beginning, though, is that there are examples throughout history where we've looked to religion as the inspiration for policies that aren't extreme and have had a positive impact on society. For instance, the very Constitution and republican form of government that allow us to even have this debate about American politics were directly inspired by religion and likely wouldn't exist without religion, at least not in this present form. I'll grant you that these types of policies have become fewer and farther between in today's world, but it's still unfair to discount the fact that many of our most important institutions didn't come from scientists or militant atheists, they came from the church.
Frankly, if a law works and has a positive impact on society, I don't care whether it was inspired by religion, atheism, science, or a fucking acid trip, as long as it delivers results. Judging public policy primarily on its intentions and the process as opposed to the results is what got us a towering national debt and an unsustainable welfare-warfare state. It's time to get back to reals over feels.