The failure of Liberalism (Regressive left) to deal with Islam

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

Nice to see Peter12 argue for the benefits of same-sex marriage. Very refreshing, Peter!

I've typically taken a conservative view in favour of same-sex marriage on this board. Although, I have my hesitations, I do think that people like Andrew Sullivan make a good case for why the gay community needs something like marriage.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

You probably shouldn't marry someone you don't like.

Liking someone is a pretty fragile state of mind when you are broke, refuse to work, and have no desire to create a shared social prestige.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by peter12

No, Corsi got it right. I also never said that only one should dominate, but that a community is a complex intertwining of private and public institutions. However, if you had read the rest of my comment, you would see that I mentioned how important it was that these institutions were given the freedom to adapt to local circumstances.



Start abstract, and start fleshing out what it looks like in practice. Government services are absolutely important. At no point, did I say that fraternal organizations and churches could do it alone.

You asked if a community would be better served with any religious temple, or a public community centre. I just dont see how, if you want a community to welcome people of all backgrounds, that answer can be anything but the public centre. It can even serve as meetings for people with any number of affiliations, including religious ones.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by MattyC

You asked if a community would be better served with any religious temple, or a public community centre. I just dont see how, if you want a community to welcome people of all backgrounds, that answer can be anything but the public centre. It can even serve as meetings for people with any number of affiliations, including religious ones.

They called it the dom kultura in Russia.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by peter12

They called it the dom kultura in Russia.

Christ. Yup, public facility, must be communist.

You're talking about the single community entity where people can gather (as you said, start in the abstract). Shouldn't it be a neutral place? By putting anything religious there, you by definition exlude everyone not under that banner in said community.

[PostandIn]

Sam Harris podcast What Do Jihadists Really Want? re: the latest issue of Dabiq and the "Why We Hate You and Why We Fight You' article:

https://soundcloud.com/samharrisorg

Hoping for a Ben Affleck rebuttal but we'll likely be waiting awhile.

[GGG]

I think what the community center lacks is Community and affiliation to something greater than oneself. A religious center creates the in-groups that humans crave on what may be an evolutionary basis. Fear of the Other is an instinctual thing that must be overcome.

So if you want an inclusive community you are right that a church doesn't work as it at its core is exclusionary. However just putting a community center that has no affiliation to anything greater does not fulfill the same function. It does not create a inate sense of belonging that a religious institution does for those that fit the code.

[PostandIn]

Originally Posted by GGG

I think what the community center lacks is Community and affiliation to something greater than oneself. A religious center creates the in-groups that humans crave on what may be an evolutionary basis. Fear of the Other is an instinctual thing that must be overcome.

So if you want an inclusive community you are right that a church doesn't work as it at its core is exclusionary. However just putting a community center that has no affiliation to anything greater does not fulfill the same function. It does not create a inate sense of belonging that a religious institution does for those that fit the code.

C'mon man, Hockey!

[polak]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Christ. Yup, public facility, must be communist.

You're talking about the single community entity where people can gather (as you said, start in the abstract). Shouldn't it be a neutral place? By putting anything religious there, you by definition exlude everyone not under that banner in said community.

... I don't know if Peter12 meant it that way but that's actually what public community centers are called there. It's the same concept. In Poland they have theaters and host the main events for the town. I don't know if they are still around in the bigger cities though.

The Polish Cultural Center in Calgary serves the same purpose for the Polish community here, except with more vodka.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by PostandIn

C'mon man, Hockey!

I was thinking about this while I was posting. That sports team takes on a religious type movement that provides that belonging and then that devotion is abused by owners to steal money from us. Kinda like religion.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by polak

... I don't know if Peter12 meant it that way but that's actually what public community centers are called there. It's the same concept. In Poland they have theaters and host the main events for the town. I don't know if they are still around in the bigger cities though.

The Polish Cultural Center in Calgary serves the same purpose for the Polish community here, except with more vodka.

Ha, exactly. MattyC missed my point. It works when it is already culturally ingrained, but it doesn't when it is just some artifice bolted on to an edifice that already has stuff going on inside.

[peter12]

New paper in The Journal of Democracy suggests a growing opposition among young, and particularly wealthy Americans to liberal institution and key tenets. Particularly when compared to their parents. This is the first time where opposition to liberalism has disproportionately been expressed by the wealthy when compared to the poor. The collapse of the elite is a phenomenon well-documented elsewhere.

Growing support for more authoritarian decision-making processes, and slackening support for civil rights are among the key highlights.

Interesting correlation to the fact that this is the least Christian generation in Western history, and perhaps, adding some questions as to whether or not liberal humanism can stand on its own merits. Everyone here knows that I obviously do not believe it can.

Regardless, these are incredibly disturbing findings, and certainly explain a lot of the trends emerging over the last decade or so. Take it for what it is worth as this is just one data set.

http://journalofdemocracy.org/sites/...Mounk-27-3.pdf

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by peter12

New paper in The Journal of Democracy suggests a growing opposition among young, and particularly wealthy Americans to liberal institution and key tenets. Particularly when compared to their parents.

Their parents and grandparents can probably remember undemocratic regimes, as immigrants or citizens who fought against them. Cohorts born in the 70s and 80s can't. As Churchill said, democracy is the worst possible system - except for all the rest. It might take a taste of 'the rest' for younger generations to renew their support for democracy.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by peter12

Interesting correlation to the fact that this is the least Christian generation in Western history, and perhaps, adding some questions as to whether or not liberal humanism can stand on its own merits. Everyone here knows that I obviously do not believe it can.

Is that even a question?

Humanism is a laughing stock, to the point where this thread could be re-titled "The failure of humanism to accomplish anything, because they barely appear to try." Humanism is just a complete disregard for logic and free thinking under the guise of promoting "logic and the greater good (devoid of theism, of course)." Humanism as it existed originally was essentially a Marxism (?) devoid completely of religion but seeking to give everyone the right to the good life.

Now it's elitist, discriminatory, and more inclined to care about the greater good of a select few. Exclusion by a religious group? No sir. Exclusion by a humanist group? Well, you're not part of the greater good. Humanism has also birthed some of the worst atrocities in the world, right up there with religion.

And liberalism could never possibly stand on its own. Nor could conservatism.

What people don't seem to understand is that you need a lot of the things you disagree with because having balance insures the worst ideology of any group never goes unchecked.

And the whole "church or community centre" thing is weird. A church inspires community, a community centre is a place for community to gather. It creates nothing. I'm not religious and I find myself more openly welcome and inspired by community at any church I've been in, compared to a community centre.

Humans need causes and tribes. Being human isn't enough.

[Coach]

I suppose from the standpoint that the church (or other religious temple) builds the community by bringing people together in common purpose and (usually) harmony, I see where you guys are coming from.

But that togetherness still only applies to the people of that faith. I've been in churches i've found inspiring and enlightening, and I've been in ones that are down right scary, all within the Christian faith. What happens when the community isn't one homogenous culture? Are you ok with a Mosque being built right beside your church or vise versa? Some people aren't. ISIS is the product of a community built around religion, an extreme product, but still a possible conclusion of what it means to build a community around a church.

[AltaGuy]

Rather than a community center, I've often wondered if a shared cause could fill the void left by religion (if that's what we're trying to do).

We do have a ready-made cause already in climate change, and since many environmentalists are already quasi-religious in their verve, I wonder what would happen if more (useful) people joined the movement and whether some good might happen.

We are kind of talking about the potential end of humanity, or civilization; at the very least we're speaking of the potential deaths of billions over the next couple hundred years. As a shared experience to fill the void, a collective effort toward mitigating/reversing/stalling climate change has always intrigued me. I certainly find it easier to believe in than religion.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by MattyC

What happens when the community isn't one homogenous culture? Are you ok with a Mosque being built right beside your church or vise versa?

That isn't really a theism-exclusive problem though.

Look at hooliganism. It's a gross distortion of what it means to be a fan of a team, but it's still based on that. You can look at it and say "they aren't real fans, they're just trouble makers" but is that not the same as what people say about ISIS? They aren't "really" the way we are, they're just trouble makers looking for a cause.

Should we seek to rid ourselves of the fandom of sport and community that it brings because there is an extremely ugly side to it? (Which admittedly isn't really experienced in Canada).

Any time you have a community, you'll have another with different values.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by AltaGuy

Rather than a community center, I've often wondered if a shared cause could fill the void left by religion (if that's what we're trying to do).

We do have a ready-made cause already in climate change, and since many environmentalists are already quasi-religious in their verve, I wonder what would happen if more (useful) people joined the movement and whether some good might happen.

We are kind of talking about the potential end of humanity, or civilization; at the very least we're speaking of the potential deaths of billions over the next couple hundred years. As a shared experience to fill the void, a collective effort toward mitigating/reversing/stalling climate change has always intrigued me. I certainly find it easier to believe in than religion.

Deaths of billions? Deaths of a few million maybe. And really those deaths are attributable to poor distribution of resources rather than global warming. We have the ability to do nothing about global warming and survive. We will choose not to help the peopl greatest affected though.

I think the politics as religion is the scary expression of this concept. Whether as an extension of religion on the right or a replacement on the right it is dangerous to have passionately misinformed people.

[AltaGuy]

Originally Posted by GGG

Deaths of billions?

I think the politics as religion is the scary expression of this concept. Whether as an extension of religion on the right or a replacement on the right it is dangerous to have passionately misinformed people.

Most estimates seem to put the death toll around 5-20 million people a year after 2050. Higher or lower - that's a lot.

Why do people need to be "passionately misinformed" for this enterprise, however? We already have those in the guise of real religion - I would propose this be based on our best science.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

In a more general sense, people benefit from social and economic bonds. People who they can rely on emotionally, and who can buffer them from material hardship. It can be siblings, extended family, church, a tightly-knit village - some protection from social and economic isolation.

The problem is that in most of those societies where marriage is breaking down, the other social networks have already declined. Community declined, extended family declined, church attendance declined. There's nothing to fill the deficit of social capital. So when the nuclear family goes, what's left is atomization and isolation.

Assuming you're exaggerating somewhat to make a point, I largely agree.

I would however claim that the nuclear family was in itself a somewhat unhealthy response to other much more important social networks declining. (The nuclear family a rather late development, historically speaking.)

My guess is also that the new generations of natural born urbanites will find new ways to build new social structrues to eventually fix what I believe to be a mostly temporary problem created by the changing surroundings of the urbanized and industrialized world we now live in.

This is where Westerners can learn something from immigrants. If you go to a public picnic site like Sandy Beach or North Glenmore Park, you'll notice that at least three-quarters of the sites are being used by visible minorities, typically in groups of 15+. Parents, grandparents, children, cousins, neighbours getting together and sharing their day. Their Western counterparts, presumably, are at home alone watching Netflix of playing Call of Duty. Who do you think will be better able to deal with the loss of a job, a failure to meet mortgage payments, a shortfall in education savings, or the ailing health of a senior? A Canadian living in a closely-knit kinship group of 20 relatives who he has built up tremendous social capital with, or a Canadian with a temporary girlfriend, a sibling halfway across the country they see once every two years, and divorced parents who they spend awkward Christmases with?

I agree with this mostly, except that I think the same de-socialization will happen to those immigrants with time, and they too will have to find new ways to build a social network.

One of the problems of modern city life is that most opportunities to socialize have been commercialized. Which means socializing now costs money, which is a problem especially since people tend to need social support the most when they are otherwise down in their luck.

When you add extreme income inequality to the mix, you get a situation where a disproportionate amount of socializing space will eventually end up being reserved for those who can pay premium for it. More exclusive restaurants, nightclubs, cafes, upper-class malls, and yes, hockey rinks so expensive that the average Joe can't afford to regurarly go to a game to meet his buddies.