The big difference is that religion usually believes in some kind of forgiveness and repentance. I can't say I see the same things in the current society.
But on the banner on this religion is not Love, but Justice. So, forgiveness is hard to obtain. It takes either converting into a zealot, or hiding in oblivion. "If God were to show justice instead of His endless grace, we would all end up in Hell", wrote one medieval theologician.
This whole thing is thoroughly medieval, if you look at it at a certain angle. While declaring that it stands for progress, it rejects the values of the Enlightenment much more deeply than many alt-right philosophers who flaunt this rejection.
If you ever wondered what highly westernized Iran might look like before the revolution, this may provide a glimpse. Feeling righteous and rejecting doubt is a powerful and addictive drug :(
I think Christ himself pushes this view in a number of fables and sermons, right in the canonical gospels.
No, it takes saying some words and then going about your day.
> Feeling righteous and rejecting doubt is a powerful and addictive drug :(
Well that explains your post here! ;)
Actually, Medieval Scholastics had a vibrant discourse from a wide array of sources that would look practically libertarian by comparison to contemporary woke discourse. It sounded way more fun too.
Different churches at different times and places were more lenient or more strict, but always kept the One True Faith which could be discussed but not put to doubt. At least, this is how it looks to me after some superficial reading about the topic.
Most revolutions I've read about, large and small consist of an authentic breakdown in or reorganization of, society. Here and now, seems like we're actually discussing an antifeature of manufactured social technologies combined with capture or weakening of traditional media.
They do it not because they are stupid, for they are not. They truly believe that what they do is right, that it's the shining path to the better future.
That is the actual structure of a revolution. Your parent comment is misguided; revolutions that aren't led by elites are rare and, when they occur, generally don't go anywhere.
This is also why killing all the intellectuals after a successful revolution is so popular.
The "scientific revolution", is not really a well known or unambiguous label, the growth of science being a long term trend. And it's worth observing that a major part of the present day corruption of science with the replication crisis, the junk sociological sciences and so on, are the result of an explicit top down utopian plan by governments to make a better tomorrow by funding academics.
Most intellectuals have identified the problem pretty quickly but they also stay mostly silent.
There are also those in high positions without the necessary facilities of course.
My feeling is that the poster is on the right track. Ideological groups, (not trying to pick on politics, but they are usually political ideologues), have become the new pseudo-religions. As people in the West have fallen away from church, we've witnessed the rise of ideologue communities on the right and left.
You can't argue with them. You can't question them. Some want to kill off half the people in the country. Others want draconian control over the other half.
And people are surprised that the only option available to a reasonable person is to opt-out?
If anything, I think people are being shortsighted in viewing the threat. For some people in the US, this ideology war is not only about a right to speech, it can come down to a right to live. Those people have to oppose the ideologues, or die.
I don't claim to know the solution, I do know that it's a tough, tough problem.
Of course not; the movement isn't the ideology.
Whatever the ideology, the people in it will be flawed and fallible human beings.
He's speaking of mostly apparent desire, not what people have explicitly said (although it is sometimes explicitly said, too). On the surface it would seem to be political suicide to say one wanted, for example,
- all Trump supporters, or
- all woke activists, or
- all conspiracy theorists, or
- all Democrats, or
- all Republicans, or
- all blacks or all whites or all LGBTQ+ etc.
(pick a group)
to be dead. But there is plenty of such talk going around and it is not always cancelled or censored by FAANG and it is sometimes even encouraged. I believe that the OP's observation is correct about a significant part of the population.
Political affiliation and religious affiliation are both beliefs. Wars have been/are being fought over beliefs. There are plenty of quotes by various parties suggesting what should be done with unbelievers at all times through history.
At bottom, isn't everything we know really belief?
So, you know, don't be gay or bisexual. Don't be trans. Don't, for any reason, have an abortion. Don't even use birth control. Don't have the audacity to explore other religions or be atheist. If you live in some parts of the world, this stuff might be codified into law. I'm not sure how jail time for abortions shows any sort of forgiveness.
Not exactly forgiveness, but if you happen to have the crime of being poor, you might have forced religion and forced work in a thrift store to earn your charity.
Forgiveness? Hardly.
Also Christians are not the ones forgiving. You’re asking for forgiveness from God himself. They’re not supposed to judge in the first place. It’s considered a sin. So all you’ve discovered here is literally written in the Bible as a negative.
Maybe Wokism will mutate into something less virulent. Or maybe the opposition to it will become overwhelming and destroy it.
I think the pattern of animosity is quite clear and nothing special. Same old, same old.
Usually? There's boatloads of sermons recorded out that that preach hate and fear. Very selective reasoning on both sides of this equation.
What “Religion” believes in is very hard to define.
Yes, they will forgive you, allow you to repent for your "errors" and then they will burn you at the stake.
Religion is just another belief system.
No organized belief system (includes any religion) is noteworthy for forgiveness and repentance. Such gems as the religious wars in Europe, CCP treatment of Uighurs today, the Inquisition, the Crusades, Genghis Khan, the current Middle East all showed little mercy for unbelievers.
They'll forgive you, maybe let you repent. But then they will kill you, your family, your friends and your business associates.
An empire has to be somehow tolerant towards differences between the many nations it consumes. The process of assimilation, even if forced, can and usually does take centuries.
Faith systems are not like that: they require an immediate conversion, and an immediate and willing following the norms.
nine_k says>""An empire has to be somehow tolerant towards differences between the many nations it consumes. The process of assimilation, even if forced, can and usually does take centuries."<
Khan didn't assimilate, he destroyed. Only after his death and the end of his generation of warriors, was his former empire "assimilated" by groups lucky(?) enough to be alive.
The words "tolerant" and "assimilation" have no place when speaking of the advancement of Gengis Khan's armies out of Mongolia.
Just like "faith systems" today have no tolerance, accept no "repentance" and refuse "assimilation".