How Religion and the Internet are Weakening the Nation-State

[UTK007]

I fail to see where this is happening. Please cite an example: the religion, the traditional secular state, and how.

The religion is: ____________________________________________.

The secular state is: _______________________________________.

And this religion is challenging this state by:______________________________________________________________________________ .
​

As I've said already, I'm generalizing about ALL religions, not one religion in particular. Furthermore, I've given you examples (in my second post in this thread) already, and you've already said that you disagree with my examples. I'm not going to retype or rehash things that I've already stated simply for the sake of engaging in a cyclical argument with you. We shall have to agree to disagree.

Now, if you have been trained in a form of social-scientific theory as I have been, then give me examples of scholars that support your argument that I am wrong. What methodology are you using to arrive at your worldview? If you have not been trained in a social theory (which is fine, most of us haven't), and you are pulling these arguments out of thin air, then I invite you to recommend any literature that you think I could benefit from. But I'm not going to keep going around and around with you. I'm not the first person to propose that social change on a global level has weakened the nation-state, nor am I the first person to propose that religion may be a major component of that social change.

I invite you to read the works of these following academic scholars who posit the same hypothesis that I have introduced in this thread: Mark Juergensmeyer, Scott B. Thomas, and Bruce Lincoln.

Finally, there are plenty of other scholars who believe the very thing that you have been saying. I respectfully disagree with them as well, but I remain open to learning from what they have to present.

 

[Sir Doom]

The internet and religion are vehicles for freedom which is an very important source of power for everyone. Adding popular freedom reduces the temporal (I think that's the right word here) power of the state as a direct result. This is true regardless of what type of government is in place.

However, increasing the freedom of the people has an almost universal ability to increase the power of the people, which in turn increases the power of the state. Some might even argue (Mel Gibson) that providing freedom for the people is the entire point of government in the first place. Thus, this is exactly what should be happening. Some might also argue (myself) that every tiny scrap of power that any government possesses is given to them by the people anyway. Thus regardless of the net gain of power, more freedom for the people at the expense of state power is a satisfactory outcome.

Naturally, where to draw the line is awfully subjective. I think we should vote on it.

 

[UTK007]

My use of word "destructive" did nothing to alter your argument or the direction of our discussion thus far.

It is simply semantics.

You have yet to provide a valid defense to your claim that religion weakens the nation-state.

It is certainly not a simple matter of semantics. If I weaken my arm by pulling a muscle, have I destroyed it? No.

And I've provided a defense that I believe is valid. You have been very vocal that you disagree with what I've said, but that is simply your opinion. I can just as easily say that you have yet to provide a valid reason for why I am incorrect.

My point being that your use of the term "valid" is a completely subjective conclusion. What is valid and what is not valid? That is going to vary by the person.

 

[UTK007]

The internet and religion are vehicles for freedom which is an very important source of power for everyone. Adding popular freedom reduces the temporal (I think that's the right word here) power of the state as a direct result. This is true regardless of what type of government is in place.

However, increasing the freedom of the people has an almost universal ability to increase the power of the people, which in turn increases the power of the state. Some might even argue (Mel Gibson) that providing freedom for the people is the entire point of government in the first place. Thus, this is exactly what should be happening. Some might also argue (myself) that every tiny scrap of power that any government possesses is given to them by the people anyway. Thus regardless of the net gain of power, more freedom for the people at the expense of state power is a satisfactory outcome.

Naturally, where to draw the line is awfully subjective. I think we should vote on it.

I love what you wrote, and I agree with your assessment completely.

 

[Tarheeler]

It is certainly not a simple matter of semantics. If I weaken my arm by pulling a muscle, have I destroyed it? No.

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to entertain your red herring. It's pretty, but has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion.

And I've provided a defense that I believe is valid. You have been very vocal that you disagree with what I've said, but that is simply your opinion. I can just as easily say that you have yet to provide a valid reason for why I am incorrect.

My point being that your use of the term "valid" is a completely subjective conclusion. What is valid and what is not valid? That is going to vary by the person.

How about a defense that withstands casual criticism?

Everything you have presented thus far has been addressed, and none of it has withstood even a cursory glance. There is article after article and study after study that detail the ways in which religion solidify populations and can result in things like a more engaged and assertive polity.

ETA: I've been thinking about it, and I think I know where the disconnect is.

It seems like you're taking very specific ideas, like Juergensmeyer work on religious terrorism, and are then attempting to apply it to religion as a whole.
And that doesn't work. Like I said in an earlier post, while religion might act as a catalyst or even a vehicle for an action, it doesn't mean that religion is necessarily the culprit.
Religious terrorism isn't any more detrimental (sorry, weakening) to a state than political or economic terrorism.

 

[UTK007]

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to entertain your red herring. It's pretty, but has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion.

Is that because you don't have a defense? :yes:
Obviously you didn't learn in school the importance of precision when participating in persuasive writing.

How about a defense that withstands casual criticism?

Everything you have presented thus far has been addressed, and none of it has withstood even a cursory glance.

That is hilarious to me, because everything you have claimed thus far has been academically weak. Where are your sources?!? What theoretical camp do you fall into? You certainly have NOT effectively poked even a single hole in this theory, which did not originate with me, with your rhetoric. As far as I am concerned, you have thus far failed at whatever it is you are attempting to accomplish here.

There is article after article and study after study that detail the ways in which religion solidify populations and can result in things like a more engaged and assertive polity.

And yet in 24 hours, you have failed to produce a single one of these articles, little lone cite exact language from an article that would directly refute the hypothesis I presented.

You don't believe that social change on a global level has weakened the nation-state. OK, I get it. So what? Would you like a cookie? Obviously a LOT of people disagree with you on this, otherwise bestselling books would not continue to be written about the subject.

I agree with Mark Juergensmeyer when he says,

"[t]he encounter between religion and secularism is linked to the very terms used to describe these two ways of looking at the world... Because religion (in both broad and narrow senses) and secular nationalism are ideologies of order, they are potential rivals" (Juergensmeyer 2008).

 

[UTK007]

ETA: I've been thinking about it, and I think I know where the disconnect is.

It seems like you're taking very specific ideas, like Juergensmeyer work on religious terrorism, and are then attempting to apply it to religion as a whole.
And that doesn't work. Like I said in an earlier post, while religion might act as a catalyst or even a vehicle for an action, it doesn't mean that religion is necessarily the culprit.
Religious terrorism isn't any more detrimental (sorry, weakening) to a state than political or economic terrorism.

Ah, that would explain the disconnect. You didn't read what I wrote very carefully. If you reread, you will see that I never claimed that religion with either a capital R or a lowercase r was the "culprit" as you put it. All I said was SOCIAL CHANGE was a "culprit." I went on to hypothesize that if the state were weakened (from any culprit), then religion could be filling any political vacuums created from said weakening.

 

[Skwim]

As I've said already, I'm generalizing about ALL religions, not one religion in particular.

You said "I was merely generalizing about how religion and the internet may be affecting the average state. If I were to focus only on Afghanistan, for example, I would probably employ a different approach because one cannot be as broad when working with a specific case study." Yet, you did cite a specific case as an example that "religion is posing a challenge to the traditional secular state" when you said "Look at the resistance the American military experienced in Iraq and continues to experience in Afghanistan."

Can't have your cake and eat it too, UTK.

Furthermore, I've given you examples (in my second post in this thread) already, and you've already said that you disagree with my examples.

Which hardly qualified as valid examples. But if that's the best you can do, so be it.

Now, if you have been trained in a form of social-scientific theory as I have been, then give me examples of scholars that support your argument that I am wrong.

What argument, that you can't use the term "state" without equivocating?

That you fail to show any religion challenging a secular state?

That "Targeting secular politicians and secular political issues seems to consolidate the religious identities of those activists involved." is no biggie?

That you have yet to show how the Catholic church's lobbying against same-sex marriage seems to enhance its power?

Honestly, equivocation in of itself is a fallacious argument and doesn't merit direct rebuttal.

What methodology are you using to arrive at your worldview? If you have not been trained in a social theory (which is fine, most of us haven't), and you are pulling these arguments out of thin air, then I invite you to recommend any literature that you think I could benefit from.

Good grief! Another fallacious ploy. We aren't talking my worldview or how I arrived at it , but your claims. Let's stick with the subject at hand, and stop trying to shift the focus away from your predicament.

But I'm not going to keep going around and around with you. I'm not the first person to propose that social change on a global level has weakened the nation-state, nor am I the first person to propose that religion may be a major component of that social change.

Perhaps not, but you're the first person I've seen to so poorly present the issue as to throw the whole discussion into disarray.

 

[Tarheeler]

Is that because you don't have a defense? :yes:
Obviously you didn't learn in school the importance of precision when participating in persuasive writing.

Oh, my heart! He's resorted to ad hominems when called on a logical fallacy. Whatever shall I do?

That is hilarious to me, because everything you have claimed thus far has been academically weak. Where are your sources?!? What theoretical camp do you fall into? You certainly have NOT effectively poked even a single hole in this theory, which did not originate with me, with your rhetoric. As far as I am concerned, you have thus far failed at whatever it is you are attempting to accomplish here.

And yet in 24 hours, you have failed to produce a single one of these articles, little lone cite exact language from an article that would directly refute the hypothesis I presented.

I'm sorry, but I'm not familiar with the school of thought that requires one disproving a claim when the claimant hasn't himself provided supported evidence for the claim.

Typically it is the claimant who must establish the truth of the claim.

You don't believe that social change on a global level has weakened the nation-state. OK, I get it. So what? Would you like a cookie? Obviously a LOT of people disagree with you on this, otherwise bestselling books would not continue to be written about the subject.

I agree with Mark Juergensmeyer when he says,

"[t]he encounter between religion and secularism is linked to the very terms used to describe these two ways of looking at the world... Because religion (in both broad and narrow senses) and secular nationalism are ideologies of order, they are potential rivals" (Juergensmeyer 2008).

When did social change and religion become synonyms? I've never argued that social change can't work to weaken the state.

Ah, that would explain the disconnect. You didn't read what I wrote very carefully. If you reread, you will see that I never claimed that religion with either a capital R or a lowercase r was the "culprit" as you put it. All I said was SOCIAL CHANGE was a "culprit." I went on to hypothesize that if the state were weakened (from any culprit), then religion could be filling any political vacuums created from said weakening.

No, I've read what you post through out the threat quite well.

In my first post, I asked you to flesh out the snippet you posted from your blog.

When you did so, you stated "I think it is rather easy to argue that religion is posing a challenge to the traditional secular state. Look at the resistance the American military experienced in Iraq and continues to experience in Afghanistan. Many of the groups and individuals fighting for autonomy in these two countries identify as religious, and they often assert that they are defending Islam as they understand their faith as somehow being under attack by America."

It was you, not me, who made religion the culprit. And you've maintained that argument throughout the thread.

If you had not done so, there is every possibility that we would have had much to agree on at this point.

 

[UTK007]

In my first post, I asked you to flesh out the snippet you posted from your blog.

When you did so, you stated "I think it is rather easy to argue that religion is posing a challenge to the traditional secular state. Look at the resistance the American military experienced in Iraq and continues to experience in Afghanistan. Many of the groups and individuals fighting for autonomy in these two countries identify as religious, and they often assert that they are defending Islam as they understand their faith as somehow being under attack by America."

It was you, not me, who made religion the culprit. And you've maintained that argument throughout the thread.

If you had not done so, there is every possibility that we would have had much to agree on at this point.

Once again you are either misinterpreting or misrepresenting what I said.

I said, "that if the state were weakened then religion could be filling any political vacuums created from said weakening. I would categorize religion (or anything else for that matter) filling a vacuum traditionally filled by the state as a challenge to said state. If it isn't a challenge, then what would you call it?

I think you've been engaging me while assuming that I was claiming something that I never claimed nor intended to claim. We seem to be talking past each other instead of talking to each other, and I'm sure that was because 1) I didn't bother to sit down and write a proper academic paper where I stated the hypothesis at the beginning and again at the end of what I wrote, and 2) because it seems that you did not to read what I wrote carefully.

 

[UTK007]

You said "I was merely generalizing about how religion and the internet may be affecting the average state. If I were to focus only on Afghanistan, for example, I would probably employ a different approach because one cannot be as broad when working with a specific case study." Yet, you did cite a specific case as an example that "religion is posing a challenge to the traditional secular state" when you said "Look at the resistance the American military experienced in Iraq and continues to experience in Afghanistan."

Can't have your cake and eat it too, UTK.

I never tried to. I sampled both the Soviet Union's and the United State's experiences in Afghanistan along with other examples of Iraq, Sri Lanka, and the United States; but, in doing so I sampled multiple experiences in multiple countries with multiple religions. I never focused on a single country or a single religion, so I don't see how your argument detracts from mine.

Which hardly qualified as valid examples.

So you've said. I'm still waiting for you to back up your opinion with anything other than your opinion.

Good grief! Another fallacious ploy. We aren't talking my worldview or how I arrived at it , but your claims. Let's stick with the subject at hand, and stop trying to shift the focus away from your predicament.

I don't believe I've shifted focus at all. I started this thread specifically to create debate so as to help me better encapsulate my writing. How is my asking you or anyone else to use anything other than your opinion to back up what you're saying shifting focus? If and when you do bring a body of research to support your claims that I am somehow incorrect (And I WELCOME that), that can only help me to better focus. Come now. Did you never debate in school, in class or otherwise? The rewards are substantial, and I think I've been more than fair to you using only your opinion to deconstruct my hypothesis up until now.

That you have yet to show how the Catholic church's lobbying against same-sex marriage seems to enhance its power?

If you need everything I've written spoonful fed then so be it.

Burton L. Mack has done some petty stellar work on social formation. He has defined religion as an autonomous sphere of personal experience and belief determined by extra-social and "superhuman" attractions. If one were to use Mack's interpretation of religion, or any number of interpretations dealing with social formation, then religion has the ability to galvanize individuals into participating in groups, organizations, or communities.

The Catholic Church lobbying a secular state government (I'll use America as an example) over an issue that the church has defined as being a "religious" issue (whether the state recognizes it as such or not) can and does draw certain people (those in politics would refer to them as "issue voters") into the Catholic camp. I've had personal experiences where Protestant Evangelicals have teamed with the Catholic Church in the United States to fight both abortion and same-sex marriage on the federal level. This has strengthened the Catholic Church's standing with some members of the U.S. Congress and it has also strengthened ties between Catholic and Protestant group in the U.S. Clearly this benefits the Catholic Church and enhances whatever power (imagined or perceived) that the Catholic Church may have on the political stage in America.

Perhaps not, but you're the first person I've seen to so poorly present the issue as to throw the whole discussion into disarray.

How has this discussion been in disarray? Even though some of it has been tedious and slightly exhausting for me personally, I've certainly benefitted from the back and forth and I hope that you have too.

At then end of the day, a robust discussion is what I wanted.

 

[Skwim]

I never tried to.

When you cited Iraq and Afghanistan: "Look at the resistance the American military experienced in Iraq and continues to experience in Afghanistan," with Islam being the defacto particular religion; and then claimed you didn't; "I'm generalizing about ALL religions, not one religion in particular." you're making statements at odds with each other, which amounts to trying to have it both ways: having your cake and eating it too. (Also, as we both know, there are many religions that have no effect on governments. So your generalization about ALL religions isn't washing.)

So you've said. I'm still waiting for you to back up your opinion with anything other than your opinion.

In reference to the examples you gave in your second post, it was no opinion that, "both Iraq and Afghanistan are religious " states." Each having adopted Islam as the official state religion." which is why I said, "so I see no secular state being challenged." To which you replied with a reference, not to any state, but to armed forces. So the ball remains in your court, while I still await--but have come to not expect--an example.

I don't believe I've shifted focus at all.

Doubtlessly you don't. But to explain. What my world view may be or how I arrived at it is immaterial to the issue under discussion, so I see its only function as diverting attention away from the issue. This ploy is often called changing the subject, digression, red herring, misdirection, or false emphasis.

Come now. Did you never debate in school, in class or otherwise?

As a matter of fact I did. And it was in debate that I was introduced to fallacious arguments, which were later revisited in philosophy classes I took in college.

If you need everything I've written spoonful fed then so be it.

I can understand why you dislike being called on some of your claims; asked to support them and all, but that's how the discussion game on Religious Forums is often played. It keeps us honest and cuts the crap down to an acceptable level.

The Catholic Church lobbying a secular state government (I'll use America as an example) over an issue that the church has defined as being a "religious" issue (whether the state recognizes it as such or not) can and does draw certain people (those in politics would refer to them as "issue voters") into the Catholic camp. I've had personal experiences where Protestant Evangelicals have teamed with the Catholic Church in the United States to fight both abortion and same-sex marriage on the federal level. This has strengthened the Catholic Church's standing with some members of the U.S. Congress and it has also strengthened ties between Catholic and Protestant group in the U.S. Clearly this benefits the Catholic Church and enhances whatever power (imagined or perceived) that the Catholic Church may have on the political stage in America.

This is more like it. An apparently good example of how the Catholic church's lobbying against same-sex marriage may seem to some to enhance its power. I question it's validity, but at least it's an attempt to explain.

How has this discussion been in disarray?

For the most part the responses have not been about "how Religion and the Internet are Weakening the Nation-State," but about a lot of side issues. Your conversation with Tarheeler (who's made 7 posts) devolved into semantic issues and ad homs. Our conversation (4 made by myself) never approached the real issue, and just these 11 posts amount to 68% of the response to your topic. To me, this is not a focused thread, but one in a bit of disarray.

All this aside, UTK007, I think you're going to do well here, and I look forward to future discussions. Hang in there.

RF can be fun.

 

[Tarheeler]

Once again you are either misinterpreting or misrepresenting what I said.

I said, "that if the state were weakened then religion could be filling any political vacuums created from said weakening. I would categorize religion (or anything else for that matter) filling a vacuum traditionally filled by the state as a challenge to said state. If it isn't a challenge, then what would you call it?

I think you've been engaging me while assuming that I was claiming something that I never claimed nor intended to claim. We seem to be talking past each other instead of talking to each other, and I'm sure that was because 1) I didn't bother to sit down and write a proper academic paper where I stated the hypothesis at the beginning and again at the end of what I wrote, and 2) because it seems that you did not to read what I wrote carefully.

This thread has gone where you've taken it, UTK. Both our conversation and the one you had with Skwim have focused on religion through your direction; this is a discussion forum, not a classroom or a blog. It's up to you to maintain a consistent argument throughout the discussion.

One thing I would recommend going forward is to write opening statements for the threads you create here rather than simply taking excerpts from your blog. It will allow you to focus on the specific topic you wish to discuss and let you fully develop your argument in your initial post.

 

[UTK007]

In reference to the examples you gave in your second post, it was no opinion that, "both Iraq and Afghanistan are religious " states." Each having adopted Islam as the official state religion." which is why I said, "so I see no secular state being challenged." To which you replied with a reference, not to any state, but to armed forces. So the ball remains in your court, while I still await--but have come to not expect--an example.

Well, working within structural causes of and military effects on the international system, we could claim that the current international system is anarchic. If we were to claim that, the system would only be transformed by changes to the organizing principle and by changes to the number of the system's parties. When you say that Iraq is a religious state, you are referring to the Iraq that exists currently (where the only publicized U.S. presence in the country is the behemoth State Department fortress that is all but impotent in projecting any form of American power). My use of Iraq in my second post of this thread was about, "the resistance the American military experienced in Iraq." The years when the U.S. military was active in Iraq was from 2003 until the end of 2011. The first government of Iraq after the U.S. invasion lasted about a year and was known as the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). I think it would be hard to categorize this government as Islamic being that it was run by the U.S. government. Since the CPA was a puppet of the U.S. government, one could argue that Iraq ceased being a sovereign state, and the international landscape lost a state from its system thus the international system could have been transformed. The many changes in Iraq's government since the CPA's dissolution have had different levels of sovereignty, and yes Iraq is officially Islamic now. However, for many years the United States was in Iraq with its own agenda and with its own forces. When self identified religious fighters fought American soldiers (or even broader coalition forces) in Iraq, they were fighting the American state or a coalition led by the American state. They were not fighting an independent Iraqi state. So I fail to see why it matters that Iraq has Islam as being the states official religion since Iraq only played a setting for the fight against American forces and Iraq itself was not a target of the fighters that I used in my example. Now, going back to an anarchic international system, if the system was changed by the issues going on in Iraq (or any other social issues around the world), my hypothesis has been that within that system a nation-state could be weakened (not destroyed and not disintegrated) then a vacuum could develop where traditionally secular politics have ruled. If a vacuum did develop, it is possible that a religion (any religion dominate in the state) could fill that vacuum.

What my world view may be or how I arrived at it is immaterial to the issue under discussion, so I see its only function as diverting attention away from the issue. This ploy is often called changing the subject, digression, red herring, misdirection, or false emphasis.....

All this aside, UTK007, I think you're going to do well here, and I look forward to future discussions. Hang in there.

RF can be fun.

I honestly had no intention of diverting attention away from the issue. I guess I was trying to get you to explain in better detail what your criticisms were. I didn't see "No biggie" as being meaty enough that I could properly respond to it. But I do appreciate the criticisms that you did construe.

This thread has gone where you've taken it, UTK. Both our conversation and the one you had with Skwim have focused on religion through your direction; this is a discussion forum, not a classroom or a blog. It's up to you to maintain a consistent argument throughout the discussion.

One thing I would recommend going forward is to write opening statements for the threads you create here rather than simply taking excerpts from your blog. It will allow you to focus on the specific topic you wish to discuss and let you fully develop your argument in your initial post.

You are correct on that. And once I realized the disconnect that you pointed out, I've tried to reaffirm my argument for consistency sake.