A clash between social, racial, economic beliefs?
I'm very left-wing socially and economically. I used to be a Christian and I've always been 'pro-poor', in the sense of being a socialist (but not because I think they have any special spiritual superiority).
However, I loathe conservative Christianity and Islam. This is mainly due to life experience rather than liberal elitism. I'm a feminist too, so I loathe them from that perspective.
That said, I do find a lot of poor people hold annoying (to me) conservative views and I do disagree with everything they believe in. Being poor doesn't alter that fact. People don't earn special respect once their income drops below £14k, or whatever - if I think they're wrong, I think they're wrong. I never actually argue this with them, or preach my ideas to them, because I'm not that dogmatic and arrogant. I still don't hold respect for their ideas because just because they're poor. I have the same attitude to the rich.
I separate people from their beliefs.
For the record, I grew up poor and I'm a left-wing atheist (technically agnostic). I've fortunately been allowed to believe what I want (as an adult). People from other cultures have religion forced on them, and you can't get rid of it without becoming an outcast, or worse. Do you know what they think about apostates in Islam? I know many, many people born into a religion willingly continue to believe, but that's not my point. My point is that in some cultures, there is no choice - so sometimes culture, religion and actual person become confused. I always see the person underneath, however. Some critics of religion don't.
I can't speak for everyone, but I'm not anti-immigration at all. I just don't like belief systems that would seek to seriously damage my rights as a 'sinful' atheist woman. My issue isn't with the believers, it's with the beliefs. I don't want my country to become more Islamic or Christian because that would suck very much for me. I live in a part of the UK where Islam and Christianity proselytise a lot because there's a lot of social/economic deprivation, so I do feel like I'm going against this trend where I live. Generally, though, Europe is overwhelmingly secular and liberal, but there are these little pockets in European countries (mainly in the big cities) where you do feel this clash of ideologies.
I will admit that secular liberal agenda (yay) has been somewhat hijacked by anti-immigration sentiment (boo).
Religious people can seem pro-poor and this can be for a variety of reasons. If you actually believe Christianity to the letter, poor people are special by virtue of simply being poor. It's the whole Sermon on the Mount and camel through the eye of a needle business. Islam says that all people (well, men) who believe its creed are spiritual equals, regardless of income; the rich have a duty to support the poor as a foundation (a pillar) of its beliefs. Both of these pro-poor attitudes appeal to the sky-wizard, though, rather than to an actually thought-out political theory. Also, it's partly a recruitment drive. I prefer socialism, but that can sometimes be a pseudo-religion.
_________________
Zombies, zombies will tear us apart...again.
Why are you "pro-poor"? Have the poor done something useful for you lately?
ruveyn
Why are you "pro-poor"? Have the poor done something useful for you lately?
ruveyn
They bagged my groceries.
I'm not really 'pro poor' because I would like them to not be poor any more. I believe being poor is a misfortune and humans should try to alleviate each other's misfortunes if they can. That's just me.
_________________
Zombies, zombies will tear us apart...again.
I'm not really 'pro poor' because I would like them to not be poor any more. I believe being poor is a misfortune and humans should try to alleviate each other's misfortunes if they can. That's just me.
Why didn't you state it that way in the first place? What you just said actually makes sense.
ruveyn
I'm a Socialist and an atheist who is currently reading Chris Hitchens' memoirs so i feel a should have something to add to this. (but i doubt that i will)
I think that the social gospel as practiced by Martin Luther King and Liberation theologists in latin america is a good thing. (people like hitchens will never praise or mention them)
I think religion is an irrational belief and it can't be proved anymore than the existence of faeries can. This makes me an atheist.
I think the likes of Hitchens and Cohen are right about reactionary islam being oppressive and we shouldn't support something that we wouldn't tolerate in our own culture just because it's foreign. So female genital mutilation is wrong wherever it is practiced , Misogyny is wrong wherever its practiced, homophobia is wrong where ever its practiced. In fact for the best take on the likes of Cohen and Hitchens read Johann Hari's review of Cohen's book "What's Left". It diagnoses both what is wrong with their worldview but also what is right with it.
I separate people from their beliefs.
It is precisely beliefs that motivate people to do what they do.
Perhaps you mean you separate people from the religion they acquired when they were young.
ruveyn
Yes, I suppose.
_________________
Zombies, zombies will tear us apart...again.
I separate people from their beliefs.
It is precisely beliefs that motivate people to do what they do.
Perhaps you mean you separate people from the religion they acquired when they were young.
ruveyn
Yes, I suppose.
On the other hand there's many Christians who don't really act on the basis of their beliefs, that is to say many have a horrible amount of cognitive dissonance. For instance, believing the Bible to be 100% true while eating shell fish at Red Lobster.
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
I separate people from their beliefs.
It is precisely beliefs that motivate people to do what they do.
Perhaps you mean you separate people from the religion they acquired when they were young.
ruveyn
Yes, I suppose.
On the other hand there's many Christians who don't really act on the basis of their beliefs, that is to say many have a horrible amount of cognitive dissonance. For instance, believing the Bible to be 100% true while eating shell fish at Red Lobster.
Some Christians do keep Biblically kosher, according to the laws in Leviticus 11, and some even go as far to be Genesis 1:29 kosher. What of them, then?
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
Messianic Jewish Christians sometimes will keep either Biblically or Rabbinically kosher (my wife keeps the Levitical dietary laws, which are also necessitated in her case since she is also allergic to both seafood and pig products.) I've previously kept Genesis 1:29 kosher, for a time at least, but there are also other Christians who are vegetarians (such as for reasons of not liking the idea of having animals killed to become food in addition to the original condition and design, in the Bible, being that we were initially to be vegetarians.) In Genesis 9, God gave formal permission for our diets to include animals, but the original design was not for that. In Leviticus 11, the laws were set for, in my opinion at least, to indicate which creatures are safer to eat as well as to act as a means of setting God's chosen people apart from the rest of humanity.
There seem to be a lot of commentators in UK papers at the moment who are very socially left wing but anti-immigrant and use those social issues to bash the immigrants on their conservative beliefs. Also, there is a public clash between a famous pro gay politician and an anti racist politician, which made me feel down listening to it, because I thought, can't you support both causes, not have to choose one or the other.
There have been other debates in the past like people saying left-wing people shouldn't have supported Cuba because they mistreated gay people or China for various lack of human rights. But those countries were being drained by the USA and exploited like many countries. there seems a lot of countries where they are treated badly and exploited by capitalism, but the anti-capitalist government who would give more resources to the people is bad and cruel in some other way, and people here have to compromise one way or the other deciding who to support.
Also it seems to me sometimes that when some foreign people become rich and westernised, in places like Israel and Dubai their "human rights" beliefs improve and they are more feminist, pro-gay etc, but they are also more cruel and uncaring to poor people. Whereas people with "bad" beliefs in some ways can often be very generous in other ways, for example, Christians I have known who were very fundamentalist and "socially backward" in a lot of issues but very generous in charity work and helping people. Well what do you think, is there any sense to it. I have been in evangelical/missionary churches all my life and they have a very different view of the world, i feel a bit confused about how to see things at present.
For a start, western countries in general are way too generous with their immigration policies, and there seems to be a culture of self-doubt that has taken over western civilization. Also, being pro-gay doesn't have to be consistent with being 'anti-racist' or pro-feminist either; I have a gay mate who is very bright, very misogynistic and also very 'realist' when it comes to non-caucasian immigration to Western countires; I actually didn't pick him as gay at first. I think people get drawn to that side of politics because they lump people into 'victims' groups. This was an idea of Trotsky back in the days of the Russian revolution, and later with the Frankfurt school of having 'innocents clubs' where just about everyone would be made into an oppressed victim of the capitalist and imperialist state, so they would go along with the nonsense of the international socialists. These concepts seem to be pervasive in socialist movements today.
I think the example about Israel or Dubai involves the development of plutocracy - rule by a wealth oligarchy. Basically the reason why things like the feminist movement and pro-immigration movements succed in countries that develop wealth is because there is now a plutocracy running them. Feminism and high immigration means lower comparative wages (subject to inflation) and increases the wealth gap in society. Think about it - women are now 'liberated' if they work full time - yet your parents and grandparents could buy a house and pay the bills with just one breadwinner, but you probably can't do it today.
Mostly they take up room and consume oxygen.
ruveyn
Contrary to myopic Randroidian claims, capitalism isn't a natural meritocracy. Most poor people on earth were dealt a bad hand to start with. It's clear you don't value justice or fairness in life. If you look at the world it's places where people don't value these things that tend to be the most violent and miserable of societies. Wherever people create massive disparities by refusing to share there will always be misery and violence.
Mostly they take up room and consume oxygen.
ruveyn
Contrary to myopic Randroidian claims, capitalism isn't a natural meritocracy. Most poor people on earth were dealt a bad hand to start with. It's clear you don't value justice or fairness in life. If you look at the world it's places where people don't value these things that tend to be the most violent and miserable of societies. Wherever people create massive disparities by refusing to share there will always be misery and violence.
It is not that I don't value fairness or justice. It is just that fairness and justice do not happen naturally in the land of the humans. They are more like glitches and random perturbations. Human life is miserable where ever human life is. Some places are less miserable than others.
And people are not naturally inclined to share, especially with strangers. A human will care more for his/her child than the child of a stranger. That is the way it is.
Get it straight. Humans are the smartest baddest apes in The Monkey House. We are an unlovely and unlovable species. We are a nasty lot, we are. If God made us, then He was not at the top of His form when He did.
ruveyn
