At least in the US, I believe that even Christian conservatism is a threat to democracy. Here’s why.
Prior to the 60s, maybe even the 70s, US politics was so about common ground and compromise. Pretty frequently, one side felt the other was wrong about how to go about something, but agreed on the end goal.
But when conservative politicians decided to align with Christians, specifically evangelical christians, they cast the other side as not just wrong, but evil. Democrats, they said, were a tool of Satan, and wanted to destroy America.
At that point, compromise began to end. You can compromise with someone you think is wrong, but you don’t compromise with someone you think it’s evil.
Much of today’s ills stem from that decision. And it’s worth noting that the politicians generally didn’t believe the arguments they made. For instance, that’s when they started talking about abortion killing babies, but before that, Republicans generally thought abortion was a personal freedom and argued in favor of it. It was all generally a way to get more conservatives elected so they could enact more favorable tax laws.
Prior to the 60s, maybe even the 70s, US politics was so about common ground and compromise. Pretty frequently, one side felt the other was wrong about how to go about something, but agreed on the end goal.
This is so wrong it’s comical. Political parties were run like crime syndicates in many ways. Local politics was routinely about graft and corruption, especially in poorer neighborhoods. The word “cooping” means “a form of electoral fraud in the United States… by which citizens were kidnapped off the street and forced to vote, often several times over, for an election candidate.”
I didn’t say it was always more polite, and of course there are examples of people using all sorts of illegal tactics to get or retain power. None of that in any way invalidates the fact that we had a very long period of getting things done by compromise and not completely alienating the other side. Today, that’s the norm, not the exception. Sometimes it seems like it’s more important for politicians to keep the other side from scoring a point than getting their own goals met.
In my country, absolutely not. Religion is a pretty subdued and private matter to begin with. It does not interfere with politics and attempts at doing so get shut down pretty quickly.
Or did you mean to ask in the context of a specific country, Op?
Atheists here in the US can only dream of the religious/political agreement you enjoy. American Evangelicals have divorced themselves from objective reality.
Florida has a a fucking military police corp and can legally take your kids if they admit to having gender dysphoria. Several states already have or are attempting to pass "bounty hunting" laws that encourage you to report trans people or people who have had an abortion or fucking MISCARRIAGE, even in other states, and will arrest them under penalty of death if they try to return. Politicians are openly calling for their enemies to be executed by firing squad. Depending on the 2024 election I probably wont live to see the next one. Shit's turning into Saudi Arabia over here.
Christian Nationalism is a form of extremism akin to Sharia Law which, ironically, Christian extremists would decry; though not because it’s unjust, but because it’s an ideology which differs from their own.
Yes, Christian Nationalism is a threat to democracy because it is extreme in the concepts it seeks to implement. Moreso, it purports to increase individual liberties by somehow implementing religious codes which restricts personal choices and liberties.
One of the undeniable founding principles of the US was freedom from religious influence. American predecessors left Britain to escape religious persecution and leave the control of the church. This cannot be argued to be false. Thus, attempting to rejoin “Christian values” (a buzzword proxy for Christian religious institutions) is an attempt to impose the church to matters of governance.
In America, it is one of the biggest threats to freedom and Democracy we face. Even the word “freedom” to them means you are forced to follow their religious edicts. Nothing makes sense in a Christo-fascist world.
Some “religion” like Judaism is more a culture than a standalone institution, and isn’t inherently political.
Religions that are canned, like most of Christianity, I think is frequently dispicable. (the sects that aren’t? Clean your fkn house, eg of southern baptists and other toxic evangelicals.)
You are wrong about Judaism in it’s more conservative and extreme forms. Hell, even Buddhism in it’s more extreme forms is nationalist and oppressive of non-believers.
The Palestinians would have a differing opinion of the Jews. The Quakers would happily end democracy if they had the numbers. Fortunately they also happen to be pacifists. The Unitarians are also in the place of not having been a majority. Again, given the option, they would institute a rigid hierarchy in place of a democratic government. It’s build into their world view of having a daddy figure that rules all.
No argument from me. Only defense is I was speaking loosely and about this moment in the US. Def not about Israel the state.
To me religion is a weird crutch, like an illness. Religions in practice can be (to non participants) benign to toxic. Internally, no comment, no experience except creepy catholicism in my long ago youth.
Don’t need to go to Israel or Palestine for extremist Jews. New York has a couple of places run by the ultra conservative sects and control the local gov’t and make a lot of problems for non-believers.
I used to worry a out this, Paradox of Intolerance but then saw a discussion on the-site-that-shall-not-be-named that boiled down to “the bigots break the social contract, they stopped playing by the rules first, so you can be Intolerant of their intolerance. After all, they want to deny another’s existance. FUCK 'EM!”
Yep. Tolerance is a social contract we all agree to participate in. They broke the contract, which means they are no longer bound to or protected by it. Therefore it is not wrong or paradoxical to not tolerate intolerance.
Suck it Karl Popper! /s (e- Previously forgot the sarcasm tag.)
Just because he called it an apparent paradox doesn’t mean that Popper disagrees with you. He merely said that open societies should first fight intolerance with reason and civil discourse; but if that fails, the tolerant majority should hold the right to suppress intolerant opinions.
Add comment