Leftism is a Religion

[marketandchurch]

If an ISM has many of the following, then its fair to say that it has the makings of a religion. If it is has all of the criteria listed below, then it is very difficult to argue that it isn't a religion:

• its dogma,
  its priestly class of interpreters,
  its religious texts,
  its faith in the unseen/unproven,
  its "faith" in general, as a way to give the souls of believers an orientation
  its Holy Trinity,
  its required sacrifices,
  its worldly preoccupations,
  its public testimonies, affirmations of faith amongst followers
  its religiously-inspired dietary prohibitions
  its rituals and practices,
  its witch-hunt's, crusades, and jihad's.
  its messiah(s)
  its presumptions about human nature on which all of its affirmations rest
  its holy garb
  its holidays
  its churches
  its patron saints
  its religious martyrs,
  its holy sites that one must pilgrimage to,
  its notions of the afterlife,
  its retort to doubt,
  its solutions to rectify justice

You don't need a God for something to be a religion. Religion is a human condition, imprinted into our genetics. Expressing ourselves in a religious manner, and having faith, gives our soul an orientation, and makes life meaningful.

You can find all of the above in Leftism, and you are more then free to challenge me on any one of those, and I'll be more then happy to supply you with examples. No one denies that Marxism was a political religion... when Stalin saw that communism wasn't a workable model, out came the end-day proclamations, of how the proletariat in Soviet Russia, would unite with the proletariat in Cleveland, and the Proletariat in Buenos Ares, and the Proletariat in Paris, and together, they'll unite, to deal the last deathly blow, to the beast that is known as capitalism. Faith in Communism's ability to function was forced upon people.

And as I've said in a previous response, which I don't think you have the courage to address, is that any time 2 or more individuals come together to start a movement, that will be an end in and of itself, you have the very real possibilities of living out religious pre-requisites, if not becoming an outright religion entirely.

[micatala]

If an ISM has many of the following, then its fair to say that it has the makings of a religion. If it is has all of the criteria listed below, then it is very difficult to argue that it isn't a religion:

Well, as a first comment, before addressing details below, I would say if you think leftism is a religion then your definition is so broad as to include almost any vaguely defined school of thought or political movement. Rightism, Feminism, the Tea Party Movement, the NRA, etc., etc., etc. would all also be religion.

Is it really your intention to define religion so broadly as to include all of these?

As far as your list, I would categorize as follows.

If you use these terms to describe leftism in the same way they are typically used in a religious context, then you are abusing the terms.

• dogma,
  its priestly class of interpreters,
  its religious texts,
  its religiously-inspired dietary prohibitions
  its rituals and practices,
  its messiah(s)
  its churches

For a lot of these, your going to have to say what you mean.

its its faith in the unseen/unproven,

For examplt, this might have gone in the previous list, but perhaps you should say what unseen or unproven things you are referring to, and then say how the faith in these things is really the same as religious faith.

its Holy Trinity,

Whatever you think such a trinity for leftists is, I would bet you will have to severely torture the notion of trinity to make it fit.

its required sacrifices,

Again, so many of these are so exceedingly vague, I fear your exercise will become a quagmire of word salad and ambiguity. For now, I will just say I do not see anything like the animal sacrifices or even Jesus sacrifice on the cross in leftism (or most an other -ism).

its holy garb
its holidays

Tie-die T-shirts?
Labor Day? May Day? Bastille Day? Talk like a Pirate Day?

its patron saints

Keynes?
FDR?
JFK?

its religious martyrs,

I am not sure I even want to speculate on this one.

its holy sites that one must pilgrimage to,

MLK's monoment in DC?

its notions of the afterlife,

Again, this seems like a rather ridiculous inclusion, but please explain.

You don't need a God for something to be a religion. Religion is a human condition, imprinted into our genetics. Expressing ourselves in a religious manner, and having faith, gives our soul an orientation, and makes life meaningful.

As a set of general statements, these are not entirely unreasonable, but how they apply to leftism is unclear.

No one denies that Marxism was a political religion...

Well, I can't say I can come up with a name off-hand, but I highly doubt this is a true statement, unless, as noted above, you torture the meaning of religion beyond recognition.




At any rate. I will let you give specifics before responding further.

[Divine Insight]

Leftism is a Religion

So are you offering this as a compliment to leftism?

Or are you using the term religion here as a derogatory accusation?

[marketandchurch]

Leftism is a Religion

So are you offering this as a compliment to leftism?

Or are you using the term religion here as a derogatory accusation?

Well I'm Jewish... any other religion other then my own is a lesser religion in my eyes, otherwise I wouldn't be Jewish, and instead be whatever the better alternative is. The same is true for a Christian, and any other religious person.

Leftism as a religion will mean different things to different people. Just as the occult and voodoo is seen in a negative light by many Christians, and traditional religion will be seen in a negative light by religious secular humanists, I find Leftism utterly offensive as a religion. It is bad for the individual and bad for society. Others may argue differently, and that is their choice.

But let's be honest with what it is... it's either a religion, or it isn't, and if you can argue that it isn't, I'd love to hear you out.

[marketandchurch]

If an ISM has many of the following, then its fair to say that it has the makings of a religion. If it is has all of the criteria listed below, then it is very difficult to argue that it isn't a religion:

Well, as a first comment, before addressing details below, I would say if you think leftism is a religion then your definition is so broad as to include almost any vaguely defined school of thought or political movement. Rightism, Feminism, the Tea Party Movement, the NRA, etc., etc., etc. would all also be religion.

Is it really your intention to define religion so broadly as to include all of these?

As far as your list, I would categorize as follows.

If you use these terms to describe leftism in the same way they are typically used in a religious context, then you are abusing the terms.

(I'll segment your response and reply individually to each one.)


Micatala, as I said, anytime you have an ideological movement, wherein two people come together in the name of an idea, that will be an end, in and of itself, it has the chances of resembling some aspects of religion, if not becoming a religion outright. The question then becomes one of religious gradation... of: "exactly, how religious is a movement?"

And we can debate out every movement, from fascism, to pacifism, to environmentalism, to post-modernism, to dadaism, to neoconservativism, and how religious each of these ideologies are. Even teen-pop cults can have religious expression, even leading to full on religious idolatry.

Religious expression is a human expression, we can't help but be religious creatures. It's just built in. Therefore, it takes virtually nothing to bring it out, and religious expression is more of a play on human yearnings and defaults then anything else.

[Divine Insight]

But let's be honest with what it is... it's either a religion, or it isn't, and if you can argue that it isn't, I'd love to hear you out.

That's fine with me. I don't consider myself to be a "leftist" whatever that might be. So I have no problem with "Leftism" being a religion.

As far as I can see many religions are nothing more than divisive cults that that justify bigotry and hatred toward other religions in the name of their God that they hold up as being the bigger spiritual bully.

So I see nothing to argue against in this thread. Humans for the most part seem to be obsessed with condemning each other in the names of their idol Gods that they hold up as the ultimate spiritual bully anyway.

Although, I personally think your accusation against "Leftism" is a bit misplaced.

Does "Leftism" proclaim that everyone who doesn't support their human rights agenda has turned against a supreme being?

Also, do they even claim that their "Dogma" is the "Word of God", or do they suggest that it's just common sense for anyone who's truly interested in human rights?

Referring to just any "Dogma" as though it is being held up as "Religious Dogma" in the sense that it supposedly represents the "Word of a God" is an insincere fallacy.

It certainly appears that this is what you are doing here.

You state in the OP that "Leftism" is Dogma.

But is it religious dogma in the sense that it is being held up as the supposed word of God?

I would say no. And therefore this would not qualify as a criteria for Leftism to be considered to be a religion.

Not that I need to argue a case for Leftism not being a religion, but since this is your topic of debate, I think I've already exposed a humongous hole in your accusation.

"Leftism" (insofar as I know) does not claim to be holding up the "Word of God", and therefore it has no religious dogma beneath it.

Dogma perhaps, in the sense of having an agenda for civil rights and common sense. But certainly not dogma in any religious sense.

[marketandchurch]

• dogma,
  its priestly class of interpreters,
  its religious texts,
  its religiously-inspired dietary prohibitions
  its rituals and practices,
  its messiah(s)
  its churches

For a lot of these, your going to have to say what you mean.

• I'll give you just an example for one of these, and it is not because I don't have examples for all of those, but rather, I don't want someone to see them and dismiss all of my examples in a sweeping manner, with a one-line rebuttal. I'm only interested in meaningful debate, who is open to entertain ideas they differ with, like myself.

Christianity holds that the messiah has come, and that all we're doing in this lifetime is preparing for his eventual return. Judaism holds that the messiah has not yet come, and only our repairing of the world and our mitzvah's(good deeds) can bring the messiah. Atheism holds that there is no messiah, so we must be our own messiah, and bring the messianic age ourselves.

Leftism has always had contempt for religion, because instead of bringing this messianic age, and fighting to rectify social justice(which will bring the messianic age), they prayed to a God that doesn't exist, and were content in the fact that an afterlife follows this lifetime, where all justices will be rectified, and there be no pain and suffering. The Atheist Leftist doesn't have an after-life to escape to, so religion is to be condemned and done away with, as it is largely, to use the words of Marx, an "opium of the masses."

This means utopia, by the hand of the state. And this utopian existence can only come about by those "messiah's" who can usher in this new age. Barack Obama is seen in that light. FDR was another. So was Marx, and Mao. The messiah's of the Left are the Hero's of the Left, who make heaven on earth, create the 1000 year reich(Hitler), make the here-after, the here-now(stalin), and all the other phrases that collectivist traditions have uttered through the ages, of using the State as a vehicle for totalitarianism, to collectivize the efforts of society in the aims of a utopian existence.

I'll be more then happy to flesh out any more of these further, but I don't want to spend too much time writing, with no intellectual reciprocation, so I'll hold off unless the thread livens up.

[marketandchurch]

But let's be honest with what it is... it's either a religion, or it isn't, and if you can argue that it isn't, I'd love to hear you out.

That's fine with me. I don't consider myself to be a "leftist" whatever that might be. So I have no problem with "Leftism" being a religion.

As far as I can see many religions are nothing more than divisive cults that that justify bigotry and hatred toward other religions in the name of their God that they hold up as being the bigger spiritual bully.

So I see nothing to argue against in this thread. Humans for the most part seem to be obsessed with condemning each other in the names of their idol Gods that they hold up as the ultimate spiritual bully anyway.

Although, I personally think your accusation against "Leftism" is a bit misplaced.

Does "Leftism" proclaim that everyone who doesn't support their human rights agenda has turned against a supreme being?

Also, do they even claim that their "Dogma" is the "Word of God", or do they suggest that it's just common sense for anyone who's truly interested in human rights?

Referring to just any "Dogma" as though it is being held up as "Religious Dogma" in the sense that it supposedly represents the "Word of a God" is an insincere fallacy.

It certainly appears that this is what you are doing here.

You state in the OP that "Leftism" is Dogma.

But is it religious dogma in the sense that it is being held up as the supposed word of God?

I would say no. And therefore this would not qualify as a criteria for Leftism to be considered to be a religion.

Not that I need to argue a case for Leftism not being a religion, but since this is your topic of debate, I think I've already exposed a humongous hole in your accusation.

"Leftism" (insofar as I know) does not claim to be holding up the "Word of God", and therefore it has no religious dogma beneath it.

Dogma perhaps, in the sense of having an agenda for civil rights and common sense. But certainly not dogma in any religious sense.

I had this debate with Danmark about the definition of religion. I've defined it better in the post above to micatala, and it is the way I've framed this is entire thread. Feel free to challenge that definition, if you feel that it needs reforming, or dropping entirely.

If only the religious can have dogma, then we need a new word for those who walk around with an unwanted faith in humanity, spouting un-thought through dogma such as "War is not the answer." Yes, "War is not the answer," to 1+2. But war was the answer to liberating Auschwitz. War was the answer to Vietnam. And Korea. And to Imperial Japan. And to Nazi Germany. And to the Balkan genocide. And to Rwanda. And to the Ukrainian massacres. And the Armenian massacres. And the Kurdish massacres. And the Chinese massacres. And the Soviet massacres. And so on.

Either faith in the unseen/unproven and dogma(an article of faith), is a religious attribute, or it isn't. Otherwise, we should stop calling them religious attributes, and instead title them "ideological" attributes/behaviors, because they apply to a whole host of things that don't include a supreme being, deity, God, or what have you.

Great points, and I'll flesh out more when I get the chance.

[marketandchurch]

I have a few people to see in an hour, I'll update my thoughts and respond more fully to the rest of your post micatala. Until them, more challenges are both welcomed and encouraged.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

You don't need a God for something to be a religion.

I accept that you consider this valid, as I reject the notion, what with the word "religion" being most bandied about by those who have them a god they're so proud of, they could just bust.

Religion is a human condition, imprinted into our genetics.

I can't so much argue against that, as I note that I have very little, to nothing, in my genetics that suggests to me there's a god "up there".

Expressing ourselves in a religious manner, and having faith, gives our soul an orientation, and makes life meaningful.

By the feathers of a bull, this atheist (read "ain't no religion 'cept for them god-folk") has plenty of meaning in his life.

I whole-heartedly object to the implication that only theistic belief is "meaningful".

You can find all of the above in Leftism, and you are more then free to challenge me on any one of those, and I'll be more then happy to supply you with examples.

Meh. That's your definition, and I'm proud for ya.

No one denies that Marxism was a political religion

I challenge you to show that you've polled the entire human population, past and present, in order that you can make such a -censored- statement.

1st challenge.

when Stalin saw that communism wasn't a workable model, out came the end-day proclamations, of how the proletariat in Soviet Russia, would unite with the proletariat in Cleveland, and the Proletariat in Buenos Ares, and the Proletariat in Paris, and together, they'll unite, to deal the last deathly blow, to the beast that is known as capitalism.

And don't it beat all, capitalism was so successful that now banks and various other corporations can't be allowed to fold without the citizenry having to prop 'em up.

Faith in Communism's ability to function was forced upon people.

I've yet to have anyone force upon me a belief that I didn't hold myself.

Projection.

And as I've said in a previous response, which I don't think you have the courage to address

It is my firm conviction you suffer from so much of the lack of courage, that you can't tell it when it does show up.

is that any time 2 or more individuals come together to start a movement, that will be an end in and of itself, you have the very real possibilities of living out religious pre-requisites, if not becoming an outright religion entirely.

I respect your right to define you all you deem it needs it some defining. I reject your ostensible attempt to declare I must accept your definition simply 'cause you did you some defining of your own.