Gallup: Drop in U.S. Religiosity Among Largest in World

[2PhiloVoid]

OK, from that fair and neutral position you should be able to explain why an academic discipline like CRT has any influence over me, especially--in the present context--over my opinion of organized religion.

Here:

Accusing Democrats of wanting to turn the country into a "Chinese Democracy" is not othering them?

Do you only appraise things other people say via simple, dichotomous criteria? I don't "think" in dichotomous, either/or metrics. Maybe take that to heart in interpreting what it is you think I'm saying? You've seen enough of the sort of things you know I say. I'm surprised you're having a knee-jerk reaction.

 

[BCP1928]

Do you only appraise things other people say via simple, dichotomous criteria?

It's a bad habit one picks up when dealing with right-wing Christians.

I don't "think" in dichotomous, either/or metrics. Maybe take that to heart in interpreting what it is you think I'm saying? You've seen enough of the sort of things you know I say. I'm surprised you're having a knee-jerk reaction.

The question is, why critical theory?? I have the impression that the right would like to bundle all that the left does that they don't like into that one package. What's so powerful about it?

 

[Bradskii]

Your viewpoint is consistent that you don't want a theocracy despite the proportion of the population practicing a particular religion, whether 10% or 55%.

The answer to 'Is a theocracy a valid alternative to a secular government?' is either Yes or No. It isn't 'Well, It is if it's my type of theocracy'.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It's a bad habit one picks up when dealing with right-wing Christians.

The question is, why critical theory?? I have the impression that the right would like to bundle all that the left does that they don't like into that one package. What's so powerful about it?

Oh, I suppose we don't have to cite 'Critical Theory specifically, such as it has been. But with all that any of us might deign to carry along and support regarding notions that knowledge, truth, and social structures are fundamentally shaped by power dynamics between dominant and oppressed groups. I mean, if you don't think there's anything fundamental to epistemological and social interplay and structures politically, then I guess you haven't been affected by 'Critical Theory.'

At the same time, I'm wondering to what extent folks on the Democratic Left, particularly the more extreme wing of the Left, have the ability to compare and contrast the nuances of difference between, say, C.S. Lewis' political jaunt in his 'Screwtape Proposes a Toast' on the one hand, and the following video [below] of obvious sarcastic demonizing made by those from The Babylon Bee. I mean, what analytic appraisals are going to be made by those on the Left to discern the Christian criticism of a C.S. Lewis from that of a right leaning, Babylon Bee rhetoric? Any? Or are they just going to start kicking and fussing (and pressing Deconstruction) with what I'm implying here without fully listening, engaging and thinking it all through?

 

[Fervent]

The answer to 'Is a theocracy a valid alternative to a secular government?' is either Yes or No. It isn't 'Well, It is if it's my type of theocracy'.

You may believe so, but I see no reason not to differentiate between theocracies anymore than it wouldn't make sense to endorse any governance simply on the ground that it is "secular".

 

[Bradskii]

You may believe so, but I see no reason not to differentiate between theocracies anymore than it wouldn't make sense to endorse any governance simply on the ground that it is "secular".

The point being made was that you don't get to take a quick peek at the leader board to see what brand of theocracy you're likely to get. The decision is first: Secular governance or theocracy. Pick one and then you can decide on what type you'd like.

Would you first pick theocracy if the majority of citizens were Muslims? I don't think so. But me? My first choice is always secular. I don't want society run on the basis of 'what is written' in any given holy book.

 

[BCP1928]

Oh, I suppose we don't have to cite 'Critical Theory specifically, such as it has been. But with all that any of us might deign to carry along and support regarding notions that knowledge, truth, and social structures are fundamentally shaped by power dynamics between dominant and oppressed groups.

Certainly I am aware of that theory and it has a certain amount of instrumentality--just like many others. So what?

I mean, if you don't think there's anything fundamental to epistemological and social interplay and structures politically, then I guess you haven't been affected by 'Critical Theory.'

I'm not sure what that means. It sounds like you are saying that if I don't believe critical theory is 'foundational' then I believe nothing is foundational.

At the same time, I'm wondering to what extent folks on the Democratic Left, particularly the more extreme wing of the Left, have the ability to compare and contrast the nuances of difference between, say, C.S. Lewis' political jaunt in his 'Screwtape Proposes a Toast' on the one hand, and the following video [below] of obvious sarcastic demonizing made by those from The Babylon Bee. I mean, what analytic appraisals are going to be made by those on the Left to discern the Christian criticism of a C.S. Lewis from that of a right leaning, Babylon Bee rhetoric? Any? Or are they just going to start kicking and fussing (and pressing Deconstruction) with what I'm implying here without fully listening, engaging and thinking it all through?

Don't forget, there are religious people on the "left" as well and given that literacy skills correlate pretty well with "left" orientation, it may not be as big a problem as you seem to think. Do you think that the inability to make such a discrimination is a major contributor to declining religiousity?

 

[RDKirk]

The point being made was that you don't get to take a quick peek at the leader board to see what brand of theocracy you're likely to get. The decision is first: Secular governance or theocracy. Pick one and then you can decide on what type you'd like.

Would you first pick theocracy if the majority of citizens were Muslims? I don't think so. But me? My first choice is always secular. I don't want society run on the basis of 'what is written' in any given holy book.

Realistically and historically, that's not the way "the government you get" usually works.

You usually get the government of whoever wielded the greatest preponderance of violence.

 

[Bradskii]

Realistically and historically, that's not the way "the government you get" usually works.

You usually get the government of whoever wielded the greatest preponderance of violence.

We're talking about deciding which form of government we would choose. As in what we'd want. What we'd prefer. As opposed to that which is forced upon us.

 

[Fervent]

The point being made was that you don't get to take a quick peek at the leader board to see what brand of theocracy you're likely to get. The decision is first: Secular governance or theocracy. Pick one and then you can decide on what type you'd like.

Would you first pick theocracy if the majority of citizens were Muslims? I don't think so. But me? My first choice is always secular. I don't want society run on the basis of 'what is written' in any given holy book.

I don't think the categories are representative of the options, "secular" is particularly vacuous when we're discussing political entities.

 

[rambot]

You may believe so, but I see no reason not to differentiate between theocracies anymore than it wouldn't make sense to endorse any governance simply on the ground that it is "secular".

But then you don't want "Theocracies"...you want "A theocracy that aligns with your beliefs". I would imagine you wouldn't be keen to have a Muslim Caliphate. So no...you don't want theocracy as a TYPE of government.

Frankly, the BEST case scenario for any religious person is either going to be the theocracy of hteir religion in first place and as CLOSE to 2nd as can be maintained would be "Secular".

Because pretty much any other theocracy is going to come after other believers (heck....more than a few secular govts. do that too....but many don't)

 

[Fervent]

But then you don't want "Theocracies"...you want "A theocracy that aligns with your beliefs". I would imagine you wouldn't be keen to have a Muslim Caliphate. So no...you don't want theocracy as a TYPE of government.

Frankly, the BEST case scenario for any religious person is either going to be the theocracy of hteir religion in first place and as CLOSE to 2nd as can be maintained would be "Secular".

Because pretty much any other theocracy is going to come after other believers (heck....more than a few secular govts. do that too....but many don't)

Yeah, my rejection of the categories as not demonstrative of the options doesn't really imply I want a theocracy before Jesus returns. I just don't find the categorization of "secular" governance a meaningful enough phrase to serve as a determinant.

 

[Bradskii]

I don't think the categories are representative of the options, "secular" is particularly vacuous when we're discussing political entities.

How could they not be representative? One is, by definition, a government where rules are informed by a deity and the other is simply one where it's not. You can't get a more basic distinction than that. If you're going to decide whether or not to have a theocracy then your only initial options are 'a theocracy' or 'not a theocracy'. That is...secular.

 

[Fervent]

How could they not be representative? One is, by definition, a government where rules are informed by a deity and the other is simply one where it's not. You can't get a more basic distinction than that. If you're going to decide whether or not to have a theocracy then your only initial options are 'a theocracy' or 'not a theocracy'. That is...secular.

"Secular" could be any form of governance, since it just means worldly or related to the world. It's an empty term when it comes to government, and could describe anything from a democratic republic to a monarchy to a totalitarian communist government. it's simply not a meaningful term. So I see no reason to give preference to a secular government purely on the basis of its secularity, as I would much rather live under a magnanimous theocracy than a totalitarian "secular" government. The categories simply leave far too many possibilities open.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Certainly I am aware of that theory and it has a certain amount of instrumentality--just like many others. So what?

I'm not sure what that means. It sounds like you are saying that if I don't believe critical theory is 'foundational' then I believe nothing is foundational.

Don't forget, there are religious people on the "left" as well and given that literacy skills correlate pretty well with "left" orientation, it may not be as big a problem as you seem to think. Do you think that the inability to make such a discrimination is a major contributor to declining religiousity?

This response of yours tells me you're not really listening to much of anything I've been saying. But here's the thing: if you're waiting for me to finally come out 'clean' and make appraisals in a way that conform with your expectations, you'll be a long time in waiting. As a philosopher, I intend NOT to give responses that will please either the Left or the Right.

So, we'll just let it rest there as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Oh, I suppose we don't have to cite 'Critical Theory specifically, such as it has been. But with all that any of us might deign to carry along and support regarding notions that knowledge, truth, and social structures are fundamentally shaped by power dynamics between dominant and oppressed groups. I mean, if you don't think there's anything fundamental to epistemological and social interplay and structures politically, then I guess you haven't been affected by 'Critical Theory.'

I personally have not had any encounters with "critical theory". I did once go to a lecture on String Theory. Could it be worse than that?

Since the lineage of this post includes mine about the failures to distinguish the gradients of the left portion of the political "spectrum", I was a bit disappointed to see this mashup of "Democrats", the "Left" and "deconstruction", while complaining about discernment of the "left" of some Christian stuff.

At the same time, I'm wondering to what extent folks on the Democratic Left,

Capital "D" Democrats and the capital "L" Left aren't exactly on speaking terms. If you meant the portion of the "political spectrum" past the middle relative to the conservatives/right (or vice versa) that includes most Democrates it is just lower case "left".

Roughly the labels for the positions on the Democrats/left scale from right to left are:

Conservative Dems, Centrist Dems, mainstream/normie Dems, Liberals, Progressives, Democratic Socialists (and somewhere around here we run out of Dems), Socialists, Anarcho sydicalists, Communists.

With the DS roughtly separating the Dems (to their right) from "The Left".

particularly the more extreme wing of the Left, have the ability to compare and contrast

They may not, but I don't know any such persons. I've run into some "Leftists" on regular social media, but they mostly spend their time complaining about the Dems and how far right the Dems are. Since what follows is a bunch of Christian stuff, I have no idea what their "spiritual' positions are. The political spectrum is a poor determinant of that.

the nuances of difference between, say, C.S. Lewis' political jaunt in his 'Screwtape Proposes a Toast' on the one hand, and the following video [below] of obvious sarcastic demonizing made by those from The Babylon Bee.

The biggest problem with the "Bee" is that it isn't funny. Their content is often bigoted and they often "punch down".

I ran in to Lewis in grade school and his literature was blech. More recently I've run into his "apologetics" second hand and it isn't any better than apologetics of "cold case detective" turned apologist J. Warner Wallace. Not the best arguments in an already dire genre. I know you are fond of your friend Mr. Screwtape, but I can't for the life of me figure out why.

I mean, what analytic appraisals are going to be made by those on the Left to discern the Christian criticism of a C.S. Lewis from that of a right leaning, Babylon Bee rhetoric? Any?

Wouldn't that be some sort of "analytic" literary analysis? It's not something I know or care to know. I think you'd need some sort of lit. major. "Critical theory" is itself an analytic framework for social sciences. It's one of many such frameworks, but I had one course in college that engaged in analysis in the social sciences. I do remember doing "Marxist analysis" (socioeconomic) analysis as part of that class.

Or are they just going to start kicking and fussing (and pressing Deconstruction) with what I'm implying here without fully listening, engaging and thinking it all through?

Deconsruction? Isn't that the thing the kids call deconverting from religion now-a-days?

Are you wanting to complain about non-belivers not liking your Christian media ("humor" and "buck up lit") and confusing us with "The Left"?

 

[RDKirk]

The question is, why critical theory?? I have the impression that the right would like to bundle all that the left does that they don't like into that one package. What's so powerful about it?

At this point in time, Critical Theory is the ideology of the Democratic Party leadership. It hasn't always been--it's a relatively recent development--but it's what the Party is running with right now.

 

[FireDragon76]

He may be the last boomer president, but the Trump admin is still a Christian Nationalist operation from #2 on down.

On second thought it was probably reference to his preference for Guns 'n' Roses.

Trump peddles in nostalgia and grievance but the agenda he represents (and such as it is), is pretty far from anything taught by Jesus of Nazareth.

 

[RDKirk]

I personally have not had any encounters with "critical theory". I did once go to a lecture on String Theory. Could it be worse than that?

Since the lineage of this post includes mine about the failures to distinguish the gradients of the left portion of the political "spectrum", I was a bit disappointed to see this mashup of "Democrats", the "Left" and "deconstruction", while complaining about discernment of the "left" of some Christian stuff.

Capital "D" Democrats and the capital "L" Left aren't exactly on speaking terms. If you meant the portion of the "political spectrum" past the middle relative to the conservatives/right (or vice versa) that includes most Democrates it is just lower case "left".

Roughly the labels for the positions on the Democrats/left scale from right to left are:

Conservative Dems, Centrist Dems, mainstream/normie Dems, Liberals, Progressives, Democratic Socialists (and somewhere around here we run out of Dems), Socialists, Anarcho sydicalists, Communists.

With the DS roughtly separating the Dems (to their right) from "The Left".



They may not, but I don't know any such persons. I've run into some "Leftists" on regular social media, but they mostly spend their time complaining about the Dems and how far right the Dems are. Since what follows is a bunch of Christian stuff, I have no idea what their "spiritual' positions are. The political spectrum is a poor determinant of that.

The biggest problem with the "Bee" is that it isn't funny. Their content is often bigoted and they often "punch down".

I ran in to Lewis in grade school and his literature was blech. More recently I've run into his "apologetics" second hand and it isn't any better than apologetics of "cold case detective" turned apologist J. Warner Wallace. Not the best arguments in an already dire genre. I know you are fond of your friend Mr. Screwtape, but I can't for the life of me figure out why.

Wouldn't that be some sort of "analytic" literary analysis? It's not something I know or care to know. I think you'd need some sort of lit. major. "Critical theory" is itself an analytic framework for social sciences. It's one of many such frameworks, but I had one course in college that engaged in analysis in the social sciences. I do remember doing "Marxist analysis" (socioeconomic) analysis as part of that class.

Deconsruction? Isn't that the thing the kids call deconverting from religion now-a-days?

Are you wanting to complain about non-belivers not liking your Christian media ("humor" and "buck up lit") and confusing us with "The Left"?

Critical Theory is the removal of economics from Marxism. That's not me saying so...the creators of Critical Theory stated that up front.

Critical Theory can thus be applied to a number of other movements. But one central component of Critical Theory brought over from Marxism is the proposal of eternal class conflict between Oppressor and Oppressed, which in Critical Theory is not economic class but other classifications such as race and sex.

Thus, in Critical Race Theory, the eternal class conflict is and will _always_ be between whites and non-whites. In this eternal conflict of Critical Theory, there can never be reconciliation, treaty, or compromise between whites and non-whites.

In Radical Feminism, the eternal class conflict is between males and females with males as the oppressors, and there can never be reconciliation, treaty, or compromise between them.

The only acceptable outcome in Critical Theory is vanquishing the Oppressor.

 

[RDKirk]

"Secular" could be any form of governance, since it just means worldly or related to the world. It's an empty term when it comes to government, and could describe anything from a democratic republic to a monarchy to a totalitarian communist government. it's simply not a meaningful term. So I see no reason to give preference to a secular government purely on the basis of its secularity, as I would much rather live under a magnanimous theocracy than a totalitarian "secular" government. The categories simply leave far too many possibilities open.

I have to agree with that (and was about to say it myself).

I'd rather live in Saudi Arabia than North Korea.