The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Liberalism: Belief and Practice
_J_
PedantRegistered User, __BANNED USERS regular
PedantRegistered User, __BANNED USERS regular
One of the cornerstones of Liberalism is that a person should be able to believe and do whatever they want, so long as they do not harm anyone. Freedom of speech. Freedom of religion. Freedom to practice religion....kinda...
This is where it gets tricky. The foundational principle of Liberalism contains a flaw: It posits a wonky gap between belief and action. Actions are subject to more critique than beliefs, since they are a more direct cause of harm. The act of hitting someone is more blameworthy than the thought of hitting someone. But we do allow for condemnation of some beliefs: Bigotry, in its various forms. Intolerance. Etc.
When this wonky hodgepodge of acceptance and condemnation happens upon some situations, it breaks. For example, if we find that 64% of Muslims in Egypt and Pakistan support the death penalty for leaving Islam, we get this clusterfuck:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XduMMteTEbc
I don't usually pay attention to Bill Maher, but this was just such a beautiful example of this tension in Liberalism.
It's the exchange we find at 2:10
What ends up happening is we make a distinction between a religion, and "fanatics". The fanatics are the people who do the things we can condemn outright. The religion is the set of beliefs we tolerate.
Once we move beyond acts and beliefs related to killing, we engage the human rights positions advocated by the religion (5:11) . Condemnation of homosexuality, stifling of women, these sorts of things. We criticize the beliefs, but still feel compelled to posit a gap between the beliefs, and the religion from which the beliefs come. The end result is the invention of 'Nominal' label for some members of a religion(8:30). The ones who claim to be members of these groups, but do not engage in the acts we condemn, and the beliefs with which we are uncomfortable.
This all seems very disingenuous; a convoluted dance to advocate tolerance while maintaining the ability to be intolerant of harmful acts, and bigoted or violent beliefs. Especially disingenuous is the division between "religion", as the collection of life-affirming beliefs of peace and tolerance, and the intolerant and harmful beliefs advocated by the dogma.
What do you guys think? Specifically, do you see the tension in the Liberal position? Is there a way to ease the tension without positing these artificial divisions between belief and action?
Another question, if we get around to it, is this: What is a belief that cannot be acted upon? Is it actually a belief, if it is never expressed?
This is where it gets tricky. The foundational principle of Liberalism contains a flaw: It posits a wonky gap between belief and action. Actions are subject to more critique than beliefs, since they are a more direct cause of harm. The act of hitting someone is more blameworthy than the thought of hitting someone. But we do allow for condemnation of some beliefs: Bigotry, in its various forms. Intolerance. Etc.
When this wonky hodgepodge of acceptance and condemnation happens upon some situations, it breaks. For example, if we find that 64% of Muslims in Egypt and Pakistan support the death penalty for leaving Islam, we get this clusterfuck:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XduMMteTEbcI don't usually pay attention to Bill Maher, but this was just such a beautiful example of this tension in Liberalism.
- Freedom of religion, so do not critique Islam.
- Belief that persons ought to be killed: Motivates harm, so blameworthy. (3:37 in video)
- Religion preaches a belief that people ought to be killed: ...fuuuuck
It's the exchange we find at 2:10
- We have to be able to criticize bad ideas.
- Of course we do!
- Islam is the mother-load of bad ideas.
- ...Jesus....
What ends up happening is we make a distinction between a religion, and "fanatics". The fanatics are the people who do the things we can condemn outright. The religion is the set of beliefs we tolerate.
Once we move beyond acts and beliefs related to killing, we engage the human rights positions advocated by the religion (5:11) . Condemnation of homosexuality, stifling of women, these sorts of things. We criticize the beliefs, but still feel compelled to posit a gap between the beliefs, and the religion from which the beliefs come. The end result is the invention of 'Nominal' label for some members of a religion(8:30). The ones who claim to be members of these groups, but do not engage in the acts we condemn, and the beliefs with which we are uncomfortable.
This all seems very disingenuous; a convoluted dance to advocate tolerance while maintaining the ability to be intolerant of harmful acts, and bigoted or violent beliefs. Especially disingenuous is the division between "religion", as the collection of life-affirming beliefs of peace and tolerance, and the intolerant and harmful beliefs advocated by the dogma.
What do you guys think? Specifically, do you see the tension in the Liberal position? Is there a way to ease the tension without positing these artificial divisions between belief and action?
Another question, if we get around to it, is this: What is a belief that cannot be acted upon? Is it actually a belief, if it is never expressed?
+2
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
There's no contradiction, because the only intercession that's appropriate or necessary for stupid beliefs would be derision of those beliefs. If those beliefs lead to bad actions, then intercession in those actions becomes necessary.
Tolerance, the good sort of tolerance that we want to encourage [edit: as I see it], doesn't mean I have to put religion on some pedestal; I can mock the Bible and Quran as goofy and full of terrible ideas as readily as I do Atlas Shrugged.
I just need to treat the people that believe those things as PEOPLE first and foremost, fairly and without undue judgments beyond what I know about them as people, not representatives of X group.
It's the acts that concern people. A person's personal religion does not necessarily require them to take any actions regarding others. If a person's belief is that being homosexual means lesbians miss out on high fiving Jesus and that's the beginning and ending of it I don't particularly care.
It should be pointed out that this is only a problem with some religions, and in all cases directly stems from a fundamentalist uprising in the history of that religion.
In every case the concept of absolutism is not a fundamental principle of religion until the creation of a fundamentalist sect.
But we say that murder is wrong, and apostasy is not a justification, so if you murder someone for being an apostate, you go to prison.
To me religious fanatacism requires the action. Someone who believes all the same things as a fanatic, but never takes any action to assist, support or encourage fanatacism, is not a fanatic.
Also, someone who says people can't criticize a religion aren't liberals. They're fascists.
When talking about condemnation of a religion, it's important to remember that religions are often very broad. People interpret things differently, or have different focuses. Lots of Muslims believe apostasy should be punished by death. And lots of Muslims believe it shouldn't. A blanket condemnation of Islam means you're condemning even those who don't share that belief. The Koran is vague on the subject, so it's pretty much up to what particular religious texts and religious teachers a sect of Islam follows.
I would be perfectly fine condemning a religion that explicitly commands the death of apostates.
And Sam Harris in general isn't someone you want to listen to. He tends to be blinded by his anti-religious ideas. For example: "When you want to talk about the treatment of women, homosexuals, and free thinkers in the Muslim world, I would argue that liberals have failed us." That is such bullshit. Liberals agitate for greater rights in the Muslim world all the time. And he criticizes liberals about getting agitated about a 1984 abortion clinic bombing... as if that's the only time it's ever happened.
Christians get to say they ignore parts of the bible but the heart of the anti Islamic movement is that every single Muslim believes and follows every single word of the Koran. It's just a base assumption of lots of people
In a related point, I think Marcuse was onto something in his "Repressive Tolerance," which appears in the fantastic A Critique of Pure Tolerance. Quiet forms of domination, ephemerally present in the background, can evade critique if we are merely tolerant. We must find ways to criticize the subtle domination, and so we need a new account of tolerance: achieving a situation of genuine tolerance (that is, liberation) requires intolerance of the existing order. Without this, tolerance functions as a limitation on its own goals (cf. OP's tension).
Way to assume all Christian are white, better check that privilege.
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
Well, when they elect those extremists, they do. All Iranians who are not substantially opposed (in terms of actual actions) to the current system are partially responsible for when the Iranian government murders gay people for being gay. Etc.
I do think a lot of anti-Islamic criticism can be misguided due to ignorance, but it's very clear that Muslims in general have substantial difficulty separating church and state. The West runs into it as well, but our respect for human rights is better, so you have organizations like the ECHR pull back on stuff like that. Or the Supreme Court to a lesser extent, but when Scalia finally fucking gets dragged down to hell where he belongs, it'll be better.
Generalizations are just that, but look at that Pew study. 78% of Afghans surveyed were shitty human beings. That's a lot. And it's not secularists convincing them that innocent people should be murdered for changing their religious affiliation.
Didn't really take for America, because after we fucked up denazification we decided to fight communism by spreading fascism, then apologized for such, then rinsed and repeated.
I don't know why that would mean all muslims are responsible, that's bogus, but I think it's fair to say that Islam shoulders some responsibility in the same way Christianity is responsible for a lot of oppression in the US
I think it's fair to say that certain groups of adherents are responsible.
Saying that Islam or Christianity are responsible implies that every Muslim and every Christian feels that way. Yet there are tons of people from both religions who are progressive and want a secular government.
Of course it does. Beliefs motivate action. We act based upon our beliefs.
This is the contradiction / tension: Believe whatever you want, but do not do whatever you want, even though what you do is based on what you believe. Tolerance ends up being the acceptance of inert belief. It's fine to believe that someone who leaves Islam should be killed, but do not act on that belief. That is a very odd conception of belief.
What makes more sense is condemn the act, and the belief that motivates it: If killing people is wrong, then believing people should be killed is also wrong.
Why is that problematic?
Tolerance isn't for everybody, just groups that aren't harming society's structure by imposing their will upon it. Intolerance isn't tolerated - if it were liberals wouldn't doing a good job protecting people who are vulnerable to the intolerant's power. At minimum it's a wash and nothing gets changed to protect the weak from the bullies and the status quo remains unbroken. Tolerance at that level can be dangerous under certain circumstances, a racist trying to murder a minority is going to kill that person when the victim refuses to fight back and "tolerates" their murderer's behavior.
Why are you quoting religion?
No. Liberalism is a movement with millions of people under its umbrella. Not every liberal is going to agree with each other on subjects and liberals can be douchebags like any other political movement.
Beliefs that are harmful to society - sexism, fascism, homophobia, racism, extremism.
Internally America is. Externally America has a lot of blood on its hands by supporting and installing dictators and a military/intelligence apparatus that has destroyed lives of foreigners who had the misfortune of not being born in America/not being white.
No it doesn't
when i say Catholicism has done some pretty nasty shit and is a negative force in the world I'm not laying the blame equally across all Catholics
A lot of muslims, a LOT of muslims, are trying to change things, even in the worst most oppressive theocratic states
What's "wrong" mean in this case?
This is the distinction between "Christians" and "Nominal Christians". Or "Catholics" and "Nominal Catholics". Example:
Catholics refrain from using birth control.
Nominal Catholics call themselves Catholic, and use birth control.
Islamists think folks who leave Islam ought to be killed. Nominal Islamists are cool with folks leaving.
This is part of the larger problem with vague labels, but it's how some people try to dance through these sorts of condemnation.
Talking about large groups is difficult.
Blameworthy.
If killing people is blameworthy, then believing people should be killed is blameworthy.
Edit: Or "punishable" or "deleterious" or any other term you like.
That's why it's not wise to generalize large groups.
But we still have the labels, and folks still use the labels for self-identification.
It seems odd to say that we cannot talk about "Christians", but individuals can identify as Christians.
The meaning, or lack of meaning, goes both ways.
We categorize smarter with smaller, more easily recognizable sub-groups responsible for the shitty behavior. Labels aren't limited to generalizing groups otherwise it's be almost useless in determining who to blame. Also, its vital to remember there are exceptions and make allowances when they show themselves.
First of all, "Islamist" does not mean someone who follows Islam. People who follow Islam are called Muslims. An Islamist is someone who believes fundamentalist Islam should control society, similar to Christian Dominionists. There is no such thing as a nominal Islamist, because it's used in reference to fundamentalism and very specific beliefs. You either are one or aren't one.
Second of all, there is nothing in Islam requiring Muslims to believe apostates should die. There are some Muslim teachers that believe it. Those beliefs are not based on the Koran.
Third of all, there is nothing in Catholicism requiring Catholics to refrain from using birth control. Being anti-birth control is part of the Catholic hierarchy, yes, but that hierarchy does not require absolute obedience. The pope and his cardinals are not God.
I think part of the confusion here lies in this assumption, which doesn't necessarily reflect how we make decisions. While it's fair to say that our actions motivate our beliefs, I think we often look for causes in the obvious places (ie: a person's appearance or stated ideology), when the causes of someone's actions are a lot more nuanced.
Oftentimes, two people might share the same ideology but differ completely in their actions. Maybe Person A spends their time working for a non-profit and donating to the poor, while Person B spends their time trying to silence artists who depict christian characters in a bad light. If you asked both of those people why they did what they did they might name the same ideology ("It's the Christian thing to do" or whatever), but the actual actions and character of the two could not be more different. If you dug into each person's life you'd probably find that Person A believes in helping people, while Person B really believes in suppressing artists; in both cases, the religion was just a vehicle for what they wanted to do anyway.
I think you're making a mistake in assuming that ideology comes before action. Generally, people make their choice of ideology based on the kind of person they want to be. If you want to know what someone really believes in, follow them around with a camera for a year and observe their behavior. Write down everything they do in a day, in a week, and then you'll have a list of the things they really believe in. The ideology they choose is just that one that happened to let them feel good; what they do is the key.
It absolutely does.
Catholicism isn't inherently bad. A lot of Catholics are bad. A lot of stuff done in the name of Catholicism is bad. Same with Islam and Muslims. That's the distinction people are making, between the ideology and the people who are actually making decisions.
I mean, illegal or just "they shouldn't do that"
Because I don't think you would have many people saying that it is a good thing to kill apostates.
You realize that means that most labels (especially Catholics) are effectively pointless and meaningless, right?
We can condemn specific ideologies and actions without being lazy and condemning the whole religion.
We determine if killing if blameworthy by analyzing the how and why it is done.
Or, you know the KKK, the ultranationalist organizations, the unibomber, the Oklahoma City bomber, the Mansons, the neo Nazis, the Nazis, abortion clinic bombers, PETA/Green Peace extremists, Slavery, the crusades, the fighting in Ireland...
There's a whole list of secular terrorism as well, but I suppose that doesn't get labeled as a mark against atheism or humanity as a whole.
And taking offense definitely does not count as harm.
1. How does believing in a religion and not doing bad things make one a "bad" person (unless you believe in bringing out the Thought Police)? External actions should be the only measure by which people are judged. Let homophobes think what they want, so long as they sell cakes for homosexual marriages and honor spousal benefits for their gay employees.
2. Many would argue that the personal benefit they receive from religion (a moral code given by a higher power, immortality after death, freedom from reincarnation, etc) outweighs the negative to society.
3. You're going to start running into problems when you say things like harm to society in a religious context. The majority of humans believe in some form of religion and would react strongly to a minority attempting to come in and take it away. See: the Daily Mail when the radical London Islamists start talking about how Sharia is the only form of law Britain will have and Islam is taking over etc.