What Is The Difference Between ......

[Objectivist]

Oppressive religious ideologies and oppressive political ideologies? I don't see any difference and would like for those that profess being supporters of Freedom and Liberty to explain how they can embrace one and demonize the other. It makes no sense and hopefully one of you can explain the reasoning in justifying one oppression over another oppression.

[ClayTrainor]

Oppression is oppression, the tools and ideologies you use to justify it, matter not.

[revolutionisnow]

I guess Buddhism is a repressive ideology also? I mean just look at the list of the countries it is popular in and look at their governments.

[Indy Vidual]

Oppressive Religion terrifies children (and adults) with the concept of Eternal Hell; Oppressive political ideologies scare and control people with propaganda, war, poverty, etc.

Many governments use and abuse religion, and plenty of preachers get involved with politics.
You are correct: I don't see any real difference either.

[erowe1]

Oppressive religious ideologies and oppressive political ideologies? I don't see any difference and would like for those that profess being supporters of Freedom and Liberty to explain how they can embrace one and demonize the other. It makes no sense and hopefully one of you can explain the reasoning in justifying one oppression over another oppression.

Clarify please. What do you mean by "embrace one and demonize the other"? Embrace what and demonize what? And what supporters of Liberty and Freedom are you talking about?

[emazur]

With Oppressive religious ideologies, you can opt out (unless the oppressive religious ideology has taken control of the oppressive political ideology). You may be ostracized (happens in America too), but you can opt out. You can't opt out of a dictatorship, unless you overthrow it. I'd participate in overthrowing my own country's dictatorship, but not one of another country.

You're asking b/c those religious Iranian zealots nationalized private individuals' oil supply and you want the US military to bomb them? What would you propose for a country like America which has religious zealots like Bush Jr. and Palin who are gung-ho for war, enriching the military-industrial complex? Those 2 have said that Iraq is God's war, and people like McCain say that America is a Christian nation. Bush Sr. said atheists should not be considered American citizens. Atheists are the most hated and distrusted minority in America http://newsjunkiepost.com/2009/09/19/research-finds-that-atheists-are-most-hated-and-distrusted-minority/
FDR nationalized private American citizens' gold, Nixon nationalized the world's gold.

So which country would you nominate to bomb the US?

[pcosmar]

Clarify please. What do you mean by "embrace one and demonize the other"? Embrace what and demonize what? And what supporters of Liberty and Freedom are you talking about?

I second this. What? Who?
Are you speaking about Ron Paul's Oppression?

[Dreamofunity]

Simple:

Religion is a choice, government is not. Most oppression via religion is actually done via the state or parents. I don't see how any individual choosing a(n) ('oppressive') religion for themselves can be compared to an oppressive government they cannot escape.

If you're speaking about children being forced into a religion by parents, or state sponsored religion (ex: Islamic Republic of *** - since given your post history that is most likely what you're implying) where the state forces religious rules by way of law I could see your point, but again I would contend that it is only oppressive because of the state, not the actual religion itself. You could contest that the religion itself is oppressive given the strict mandates the religion imposes (sharia law/ten commandments/etc), but if it's not state sponsored and a personal choice with freedom of religion to follow said religion I wouldn't consider it to be oppression.

I would agree that parent/state forced religion is oppressive, but that religion by personal choice is not.

[TGGRV]

There's no such thing as religious oppression so there's no difference. The religious oppression is actually oppression done by the political part of a religion. I like the bait though.

[Dr.3D]

There's no such thing as religious oppression so there's no difference. The religious oppression is actually oppression done by the political part of a religion. I like the bait though.

That is exactly why I believe politics should be kept out of religion.

[NYgs23]

What do you mean by "oppression"? Do you mean "acts of aggression by one party against another party"? If so, there is nothing inherent in religion that makes it aggressive, though, admittedly, religion is frequently used as a justification for aggressive behavior. But, then again, so is charity to the poor, but that doesn't make charity to the poor inherently aggressive. For a religious ideology to be inherently aggressive and, thus, oppressive, it would have mandate the use aggression.

And, of course, it's the same way with "political" ideologies, though, since political ideologies revolve around the state, which itself is inherently aggressive, the only political ideology that is inherently non-aggressive is one advocating a voluntary society over a society ruled by the state.

[krazy kaju]

I guess Buddhism is a repressive ideology also? I mean just look at the list of the countries it is popular in and look at their governments.

There are militant Buddhists who attack people of other faith. I'm not even kidding or being sarcastic about this.

[max]

foolish post...there is no comparison

The Pope isnt taking huge chunks out of my paycheck each week...nor is he advocating the bombardment of innocent people and the invasion of countries...nor is the Vatican printing money out of thin air and bankrupting my kids...

Neither is the Dali Lama, nor the Muslim imans nor Hindu priests...

[akforme]

The funny thing is, for most people, the belief in religion and type of government have more to do with where you were born on the earth than actual truth.

[revolutionisnow]

There are militant Buddhists who attack people of other faith. I'm not even kidding or being sarcastic about this.

So what? People who would call themselves Christians attack and murder people every day in America, just turn on your local news. Is there really a difference in people who attack people over religious or political ideology and people who attack people based on petty drama?

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[TGGRV]

That is exactly why I believe politics should be kept out of religion.
What do you do when most of your holy book is filled with politics instead of things related to faith?


What do you mean by "oppression"? Do you mean "acts of aggression by one party against another party"? If so, there is nothing inherent in religion that makes it aggressive, though, admittedly, religion is frequently used as a justification for aggressive behavior. But, then again, so is charity to the poor, but that doesn't make charity to the poor inherently aggressive. For a religious ideology to be inherently aggressive and, thus, oppressive, it would have mandate the use aggression.

And, of course, it's the same way with "political" ideologies, though, since political ideologies revolve around the state, which itself is inherently aggressive, the only political ideology that is inherently non-aggressive is one advocating a voluntary society over a society ruled by the state.
Hmm, I'm not so sure about that.

"Fight those who don’t believe in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

I can go on with quotes from the Quran. Or I can move to the Hadith or Sirah. By the way, jizya is poll tax. It's like protection that the mafia asks.

[RM918]

What do you do when most of your holy book is filled with politics instead of things related to faith?


Hmm, I'm not so sure about that.

"Fight those who don’t believe in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

I can go on with quotes from the Quran. Or I can move to the Hadith or Sirah. By the way, jizya is poll tax. It's like protection that the mafia asks.

Both were written or maintained by men, and men can be weak.

[erowe1]

What do you do when most of your holy book is filled with politics instead of things related to faith?


That's an ironic remark to make in a thread created by someone named "Objectivist," since the holy writings of the religion of Objectivism are perhaps more overtly and consistently political than those of almost any other religion.

[Dr.3D]

What do you do when most of your holy book is filled with politics instead of things related to faith?


Well, I wasn't aware my holy book was filled with politics. :confused:

[Objectivist]

Clarify please. What do you mean by "embrace one and demonize the other"? Embrace what and demonize what? And what supporters of Liberty and Freedom are you talking about?

There are those that embrace and hold dear religious ideologies that are oppressive.

AN example would be a religion that beats you for having a beer, that would be oppressive. Treating women differently than men in any religion is oppression when the women are not "allowed" the same "rights" as men. There are people that hold these ideals and it flies in the face of what a Freedom and Liberty Movement are about.

The demonization is in the double standard held when embracing the oppressive religion.

[Objectivist]

Simple:

Religion is a choice, government is not. Most oppression via religion is actually done via the state or parents. I don't see how any individual choosing a(n) ('oppressive') religion for themselves can be compared to an oppressive government they cannot escape.

If you're speaking about children being forced into a religion by parents, or state sponsored religion (ex: Islamic Republic of *** - since given your post history that is most likely what you're implying) where the state forces religious rules by way of law I could see your point, but again I would contend that it is only oppressive because of the state, not the actual religion itself. You could contest that the religion itself is oppressive given the strict mandates the religion imposes (sharia law/ten commandments/etc), but if it's not state sponsored and a personal choice with freedom of religion to follow said religion I wouldn't consider it to be oppression.

I would agree that parent/state forced religion is oppressive, but that religion by personal choice is not.

In religious doctrine you will find laws and rules of living that are contrary to living in a Free Society. So following a religion and those doctrines are counter or a negative really to being Free.

[Objectivist]

There's no such thing as religious oppression so there's no difference. The religious oppression is actually oppression done by the political part of a religion. I like the bait though.

Sure there is when you know that a religion makes rules in which one lives their life.... if you choose to follow a religion. The immorality in most is the promise of something better after you die, which cannot be proved. Now that's immoral.

I'm not for anarchy like some here but making rules and punishments for breaking those rules is oppressive, especially if one is forced of coerced into making concessions for anothers religion.

[TortoiseDream]

Oppressive religious ideologies and oppressive political ideologies? I don't see any difference and would like for those that profess being supporters of Freedom and Liberty to explain how they can embrace one and demonize the other. It makes no sense and hopefully one of you can explain the reasoning in justifying one oppression over another oppression.

There's no such thing as oppressive ideology. Ideology is within us and purely voluntary. Religion is personal, political ideas are personal.

But how we chose to act upon these ideologies, that is another thing. But these acts themselves are not the religions or politics.

[Objectivist]

There's no such thing as oppressive ideology. Ideology is within us and purely voluntary. Religion is personal, political ideas are personal.

But how we chose to act upon these ideologies, that is another thing. But these acts themselves are not the religions or politics.

If like you say religion is personal, why are there houses of worship? If religion is personal why is my bank closed on religious holidays? If religion is personal how can one be punished for drinking a beer?

[heavenlyboy34]

If like you say religion is personal, why are there houses of worship? If religion is personal why is my bank closed on religious holidays? If religion is personal how can one be punished for drinking a beer?

Banks close on holidays voluntarily because they know most people won't be making transactions, last I checked. :confused:

[Objectivist]

Banks close on holidays voluntarily because they know most people won't be making transactions, last I checked. :confused:

"Most people"? Really? Hmm, I see people driving around looking for open stores every year on religious holidays. Then why does the government close its doors on some religious holidays if religion is personal? It is collectivist by the way, not personal. Kinda boring sitting by yourself singing inane hymns.

Visions of southern black baptists singing alone doesn't do justice to that style of getting down.

[TortoiseDream]

If like you say religion is personal, why are there houses of worship? If religion is personal why is my bank closed on religious holidays? If religion is personal how can one be punished for drinking a beer?

That's simple, all of those things are consequences of how we choose to act based on our beliefs, but those beliefs remain internal. Religion doesn't build churches, religion is an abstract concept, it doesn't exist. People build churches. People close the bank on certain days. People punish others for certain things.

[Objectivist]

That's simple, all of those things are consequences of how we choose to act based on our beliefs, but those beliefs remain internal. Religion doesn't build churches, religion is an abstract concept, it doesn't exist. People build churches. People close the bank on certain days. People punish others for certain things.

Have you been to the Vatican City? People create religions.

[TortoiseDream]

Have you been to the Vatican City? People create religions.

My point exactly. When has religion created anything?

[heavenlyboy34]

"Most people"? Really? Hmm, I see people driving around looking for open stores every year on religious holidays. Then why does the government close its doors on some religious holidays if religion is personal? It is collectivist by the way, not personal. Kinda boring sitting by yourself singing inane hymns.

Visions of southern black baptists singing alone doesn't do justice to that style of getting down.


I'm afraid I don't know. The custom began long before I was born. :confused:

[Flash]

"Most people"? Really? Hmm, I see people driving around looking for open stores every year on religious holidays.

Apparently the major companies don't find it profitable & most employees may not be able to show up for work.


Then why does the government close its doors on some religious holidays if religion is personal?

Because it's the government. There's a million other things the government does wrong.


So following a religion and those doctrines are counter or a negative really to being Free.

Not really? One's own ideology or religious philosophy is their own choice. If you wish to reject homosexual acts in your personal life because of religious belief then what is wrong with that? If you choose to ignore religion altogether then that is great. And 'freedom' is relative, by the way. One may find a society to be unfree if he doesn't have the right to kill & rape as he pleases. Also one restricting himself from doing certain acts doesn't somehow make it an unfree society.


And just like your Islam threads, I posted statistics & links showing crime rate decreasing in France, Germany, etc.. and other nations with heavy muslim immigration. I showed you that non-Arabid races have managed to secularize Islam just like modern Christianity today. Infact nations like Iran you can be an Indo-Aryan pagan or an atheist and it is legal. Doesn't seem to me that Islam promotes anti-free religion.


Oppressive religious ideologies and oppressive political ideologies? I don't see any difference and would like for those that profess being supporters of Freedom and Liberty to explain how they can embrace one and demonize the other.

Why do you want to shove your morals upon others? Like not killing, raping, or stealing. That is in reality restricting one's own freedom.