Redefining Religion as Politics

[Balthazzar]

I'm thinking cyberocracy where advance AI take the jobs of politicians.
The only problem is that in the beginning people would program their biases into the AI. Though I suspect eventually, computers will be able to remove from themselves this human bias.

A hacker's heaven realized.

 

[Nakosis]

A hacker's heaven realized.

I suppose that is what lobbyist groups are. A way to hack into our human based system.

Hopefully an AI based system would develop a better way to deal with that than us humans have.

 

[Balthazzar]

I suppose that is what lobbyist groups are. A way to hack into our human based system.

Hopefully an AI based system would develop a better way to deal with that than us humans have.

You're seriously suggesting that artificial intelligence become our governors as humans?

 

[LuisDantas]

That wasn't even suggested or even remotely relative to anything presented about the nature of religion and politics. The point, specifically is our 1st amendment being this nation's first line of defense, which ensure religious freedom and establishes that no laws shall be made that respect one religion over another. To fully utilize this right, religion should be accepted as an academic, if only to help ensure a capable pool of future representatives due to the overwhelming evidence of politically motivated religious movements across the globe.

Maybe I am not understanding what you propose?

Religion is a proper academic subject.

 

[LuisDantas]

I was under the impression that Buddhism is classified as a philosophy.

There is actually no consensus, and likely never will be. All kinds of movements are called "religions" and refused that label for what are ultimately largely political reasons.

That is not in itself a problem, as long as we are aware that it is happening.

 

[Balthazzar]

There is actually no consensus, and likely never will be. All kinds of movements are called "religions" and refused that label for what are ultimately largely political reasons.

That is not in itself a problem, as long as we are aware that it is happening.

Tax exempt status or lack of may be something to consider.

 

[LuisDantas]

Tax exempt status or lack of may be something to consider.

Right, that.

Whether a movement is considered as "religious" by someone should never factor into those decisions. Precisely because it is such an arbitrary choice, so frequently and so easily abused, and beyond that also harms the ability of less acknowledged movements to be recognized for what they are.

If tax exemptions are to be requested or granted, it should always be on the basis of concrete, demonstrable activities or self-imposed restrictions.

Many a self-styled "church" is actually more akin to a pyramid money scheme with highly paid and privileged CEOs, even if they prefer to call those priests, pastors, missionaries, reverends or apostles.

 

[Balthazzar]

Right, that.

Whether a movement is considered as "religious" by someone should never factor into those decisions. Precisely because it is such an arbitrary choice, so frequently and so easily abused, and beyond that also harms the ability of less acknowledged movements to be recognized for what they are.

If tax exemptions are to be requested or granted, it should always be on the basis of concrete, demonstrable activities or self-imposed restrictions.

Many a self-styled "church" is actually more akin to a pyramid money scheme with highly paid and privileged CEOs, even if they prefer to call those priests, pastors, missionaries, reverends or apostles.

Politics

Tax exempt status would dictate that any specified religion is its own Sovreign entity with set laws, policies, etc that have been set in place for those who are part of that particular religion. How they operate specifically depends on the choices (policies) enacted by them, as opposed to being subject to other religious or non-religious groups - They are self-governing entities who operate within the legal parameters of the territories to which they belong. They are a political entity by definition.

 

[Quintessence]

The premise is so quickly dismissed, while the evidence is monumentally and overwhelmingly supporting the premise already.

Could've fooled me. This has got to be one of the strangest ideas I've heard in some time. The evidence for it certainly isn't monumental and overwhelming. Perhaps it is for certain, specific religions but not for religion as a whole.

If anything, it makes vastly more sense to redefine politics as a subset of religion. In fact, a lecture series I'm watching right now from a professor of history argues precisely that, and while I don't fully agree with them, it's more accurate to say politics is a function of religion than the other way around.

 

[Balthazzar]

Could've fooled me. This has got to be one of the strangest ideas I've heard in some time. The evidence for it certainly isn't monumental and overwhelming. Perhaps it is for certain, specific religions but not for religion as a whole.

If anything, it makes vastly more sense to redefine politics as a subset of religion. In fact, a lecture series I'm watching right now from a professor of history argues precisely that, and while I don't fully agree with them, it's more accurate to say politics is a function of religion than the other way around.

More modernized governments are a subset of religion, due to religion being the politics of the past. Both are political entities and forms of government.

 

[LuisDantas]

Politics

Tax exempt status would dictate that any specified religion is its own Sovreign entity with set laws, policies, etc that have been set in place for those who are part of that particular religion. How they operate specifically depends on the choices (policies) enacted by them, as opposed to being subject to other religious or non-religious groups - They are self-governing entities who operate within the legal parameters of the territories to which they belong. They are a political entity by definition.

I don't have strong enough words to express how intensely I disapprove of that idea.

 

[Quintessence]

More modernized governments are a subset of religion, due to religion being the politics of the past. Both are political entities and forms of government.

Religion is the politics of the past?

*blinks*

Okay, we're just living on different planets, then. Carry on.

 

[Balthazzar]

Religion is the politics of the past?

*blinks*

Okay, we're just living on different planets, then. Carry on.

From whence and why other forms were instituted.

 

[Balthazzar]

I don't have strong enough words to express how intensely I disapprove of that idea.

You disapprove of the classification and self-governing abilities while remaining within the legal parameters of the territories they belong to, or that you think they should be operated and governed by others who don't belong to their institutions?

 

[Ebionite]

Which is what religion always has been.

Only within the context of the union of the church and state. The religion of knowledge is quite different to the religion of faith.

 

[LuisDantas]

More modernized governments are a subset of religion, due to religion being the politics of the past. Both are political entities and forms of government.

To the extent that this might be considered true, what you are proposing is a dangerous regression to an unworkable and unethical situation of the past.

 

[Ebionite]

Hopefully an AI based system would develop a better way to deal with that than us humans have.

AI is a misnomer. What is popularly known as AI is more correctly described as a large language model. The models are dependent upon the quality of the the text that is used in the model. In other words, a LLM is vulnerable to the garbage in, garbage out problem.

 

[LuisDantas]

You disapprove of the classification and self-governing abilities while remaining within the legal parameters of the territories they belong to, or that you think they should be operated and governed by others who don't belong to their institutions?

I disapprove of any official recognition of religious and pseudo-religious groups whatsoever in anything with any form of political power.

Religions is supposed to be a personal matter, not a political one.

 

[Balthazzar]

To the extent that this might be considered true, what you are proposing is a dangerous regression to an unworkable and unethical situation of the past.

Education and making informed voter decisions, particularly as they relate to national security and international threats is not a dangerous regression to an unworkable and unethical situation of the past. The contrary is more so true than your assessment. Religion is political in nature and as you suggested, has become somewhat a threat to the "free world". Being informed seems more appropriate than willful policy initiated oriented ignorance.

 

[Balthazzar]

I disapprove of any official recognition of religious and pseudo-religious groups whatsoever in anything with any form of political power.

Religious is supposed to be a personal matter, not a political one.

Since when?

Edit: At one time religious governance was the rule of law, which gave birth to other forms of government. The struggles and conflicts, the revolutionary type efforts for greater independence is nothing new in this modern world. These conflicts are often enough shared by neighbors who understand the reasons for. The world is in process of combating old world governments that infringe on human rights in favor of those which would seem to best affect the safety and happiness of those who pursue the new over the old. These rebellions and acts of desperation derive from human tragedy and unjust treatment inflicted by the governing forces in question.