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.

[help3434]

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.

Ideological attributes sounds good to me. Why do you want to label secular ideologies as religions anyway?

[marketandchurch]

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.

Ideological attributes sounds good to me. Why do you want to label secular ideologies as religions anyway?

Because if it looks like a religion, it sounds like a religion, it acts like a religion, and it makes the same moral demands as a religion, then it is a religion.

Because dismissing God-Based religions for the notion of faith in the unproven is dishonest, especially when an atheist then frames the having of faith in the unproven, as an irrationality, that is brought on by belief in God. And that is dishonest. People dismiss God-based religious irrationalities, but don't dismiss secular irrationalities, & I find that selective judgement a bit bigoted. Either all irrationalities are to be dismissed, or no irrationalities are to be dismissed.

[help3434]

Because if it looks like a religion, it sounds like a religion, it acts like a religion, and it makes the same moral demands as a religion, then it is a religion.

Political ideologies are similar to religion because religion is often ideological. That doesn't make political ideologies religions.

Because dismissing God-Based religions for the notion of faith in the unproven is dishonest, especially when an atheist then frames the having of faith in the unproven, as an irrationality, that is brought on by belief in God. And that is dishonest. People dismiss God-based religious irrationalities, but don't dismiss secular irrationalities, & I find that selective judgement a bit bigoted. Either all irrationalities are to be dismissed, or no irrationalities are to be dismissed.

If you, want to debate that, then debate that. There is no need to broaden the definition of religion to do so.

[marketandchurch]

[Replying to post 13 by help3434]


To Clarify
The religious characteristics, as seen manifested in religion, is simply transferred from a God-based religion, to a God-less religion with Secular Humanism(the religion of most atheists and Leftists). In other words, Religiosity, and religious expression, is the human default. It is not a creation of the human being, in trying to connect to a supernatural, but rather, an extension of our very being and a statement of the built-in need to have faith and belief, in something higher then ourselves or our situation, to give meaning and purpose to existence. Absent a focus or a specific movement/religion, this human compulsion is merely transferred to something else, but never destroyed. It is not even subdued by science, or scientific thinking/reasoning. And it certainly is not subdued by atheism(non-belief in God), as most atheists are amongst the most religious people on earth.


We have it all wrong!
So we have it all backwards. Belief in Gods to explain the world didn't create religion. Our religious impulse and our transcendent urges was what constructed Gods and religion. It is imprinted into our genetics. Those same religious impulses and transcendent urges now power a God-less religion, called Secular Humanism, where we are required to believe that humanity warrants our faith? That the Human creature has somehow morally progressed enough, genetically speaking, as to be seen as having a basically good nature? I have to suspend my logic, and belief in the provable, to accept such a mighty transcendent claim.


The Benefit To My Approach
So I think we have two choices:

• 1.) We need to totally reframe the ways in which we view things.
  
  OR
  
  2.) We have to stop denouncing religion as the sole producer of "faith in the improvable," "dogma," and a number of other things that people criticize religion for causing...

And I prefer the reframing. Because then we can make traditional religion, and God-less religions in the form of ideologies, more rational, wouldn't you agree? If we accepted that both religions and ideologies are nothing more then an extension of a human impulse, written into our nature, then it becomes more about making them more rational, and intelligent. I can't stand Dogma such as "The world can't wait," or "Make love, not war." Treating these ideologies as what they are: Religions, and Introducing some Intellectual Substance and Rationality across the board to every God-based and God-less religion, would elevate humanity immensely. A more rational atheism, and a more rational theism, would diminish cruelty and decency on earth. To many people have died on the alters of collectivism and other religious God-less ideologies, this reframing would go a long way to ending that.

[Dantalion]

Arguments, bitte, arguments!

All I hear is baseless white noise.
what makes Leftism a religion ?

Explain what you mean, give examples, arguments,...

[DanieltheDragon]

re·li·gion

/riˈlijən/



Noun


1.The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.
2.Details of belief as taught or discussed.




be·lief

/biˈlēf/



Noun


1.An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
2.Something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction


So by your application we are going with the second definition and not the first what exactly are you trying to accomplish by making this assumption? As other have pointed out using such a loose definition of the word makes virtually all human social behavior religious. However in the second definition the supernatural is not applicable. So if you are to say that because we make "religions" is evidence that a god/gods exist is a rather moot point since all it points to is that we as social creatures have a habit of forming social structures in which to organize our collective efforts. Your application of this in regards to this statement is off-base ", an extension of our very being and a statement of the built-in need to have faith and belief, in something higher then ourselves or our situation, to give meaning and purpose to existence" because now you are applying extraneous terminology to the original proposal. Generally you are doing this because you are operating within the confines of your religion and cannot empathize outside of this mindset so you wrongly assume that we all have a built in need to have a higher mode of existence. I urge you to examine this article as evidence to support my claim http://ffrf.org/publications/freethough ... ithout-god

these people have no religion nor do they have the above compulsions which you stated are engrained in our DNA obviously this is common in western cultures and religions but less so internationally. I applaud your discovery of how to make an analogy but I fail to see the point of this thread any longer as I have clearly demonstrated with a dictionary the validity and insufficient application of your claim

[100%atheist]

[Replying to post 1 by marketandchurch]

The, Alcoholism is a religion too, just like Christianity ....

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to 100%atheist]

Don't forget Darwinism that's the biggest one of all

[Jax Agnesson]

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.

Lets allow for a moment that some of the above might be true in some cases.
But so what?
Here's a good idea!