Why is it that the label "religion" is so often used as a pejorative in contemporary political debates? I've heard both environmentalism (link) and atheism (I'd link to Youtube, but that's hardly fair. try this, instead) called a religion.
In most of these cases, the attack is launched by a member of a legitimate faith, usually Christianity. Are they aware that using the concept of "faith" as an attack is almost certainly detrimental to their own position (if only in terms of framing future issues)? Are they aware of the possible pitfalls (like being wrong) that follow such a tactic?
Has anyone else noticed this trend tendency, or am I overreacting? (And do they hope for just this sort of overreaction?)
Yeah, only a wacko could look at a partially organized group of people with a common belief about the nature of the universe paired with a proscriptive system of ethics and see a religion.
Also keep in mind the English is not French: it evolves rapidly and even dictionaries are a guide at the best of times. There is no position from which you can actually back up the claim that "religion means xxxxx" so long as the use is broadly similar to original one.
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
I think you completely missed the point here... what we (or at least I assumed we) were talking about is how "religion" is used as a put-down by people who are themselves religious.
Well yeah, but Sym couldn't think of anything to say about that. So, instead, he picks at a passing comment in the hopes of getting a rise and making himself MOAR IMPOARTENT.
Its similar to the "anti-darwin" or "post-modern" stuff. Religion cannot compete with science, period. Because things like environmentalism and atheism make logical appeals to empiricism, they are better suited in arguments of fact. If a religious person makes these ideals look like they are as much a belief system as a religion, a moderate american conservative goes "hmmmm, well, if its all the same, I'm going to stick to my guns".
EDIT: I would also say that (at least specifically in the case of atheism) minus a spiritual component, there are huge sections of both the "environmentalist" and "atheist" communities for whom the "religion" label is apt. I would suspect the majority of those who self-identify with either term may be accuratly described as "religious".
__________________ yes, a million times yes
Last edited by tsilamini on Dec 15th, 2009 at 06:21 AM
It seems likely that is a response to the feeling that other side is being hypocritical. Just a very stupid way of trying the old supervillain "we're not so different you and I" line.
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
They think the Christian is using "religion" as a pejorative, when instead she is using it to try and undermine the empiricism used in atheist and environmentalist arguments.
its not hypocritical, because she is not claiming any empirical supremacy in Christianity, more trying to make it seem that science and religion are the same because science is a religion, therefore there is no reason to believe science over Christianity.
Science is real, and has yielded provable, testable and pretty reliable results.
Thats perhaps why 'religion' is not a word that is accurate when describing it.
The monitors, computers, internet that we communicate on now etc were not built from 'god's eternal love' or any blind faith in cultist scripture.
And science fears no scrutiny.... it and our understanding of it evolves honestly.
Science as science, religion as religion.
Religion works on blind faith.
And blind faith does have well earned pejorative tones.
__________________
"Van Zan is the Pinocchio of feces." - Lestov16
Last edited by Sadako of Girth on Dec 16th, 2009 at 02:58 PM
KMC Community Forums
Dec 15th, 2009 03:44 AM
Well, recognized faith then.
