Redefining Religion as Politics

[LuisDantas]

Since when?

Since we understood their proper place as a constructive force, I suppose.

Which, I feel the need to clarify, is one where it isn't allowed to demand political favor.

 

[Balthazzar]

Since we understood their proper place as a constructive force, I suppose.

I added an edit to my previous post, and I'll agree with a personal application of religious practice.

 

[Kenny]

Which is what religion always has been. World politics and forms of government, which at international levels secures the premise that religion is politics. In North America, we make religion controversial, but no less controversial than other forms of government. Shouldn't religion be defined as a political structure, specifically? We don't shun dialogue about other forms of government in our academic institutions. What makes religion any different?

I don’t think so. It is more of “this is my world view foundation” for understanding sake. But even there, you can have two people from the same religion and yet have two different political positions. Anyway, just my two cents.

 

[Balthazzar]

I don’t think so. It is more of “this is my world view foundation” for understanding sake. But even there, you can have two people from the same religion and yet have two different political positions. Anyway, just my two cents.

As citizens and members of a religious entity, I'll agree. The nature of politics, and specific dynamics associated with our affiliations and applied as "personal world views" is how I'm processing your assessment. I'm a left leaning republican - never mind my religious affiliation, if any.

 

[Mock Turtle]

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.

LLMs are just one aspect of AI, and quite successful even if they have many flaws. I think the experts are expecting to have something a lot better than LLMs in the future.

 

[HonestJoe]

Which is what religion always has been. World politics and forms of government, which at international levels secures the premise that religion is politics.

I think it's more complex than that, and ignoring the complexity would be a mistake.

Religion just describes various sets of formalised beliefs and practices, often (but not always) relating to gods, and wider fundamental concepts of how everything is and came to be. Politics describes the systems and processes we implement to manage and run our structured societies. Where ever religion is practiced by a large proportion of the population, especially among the ruling classes, there is inevitably going to be crossover, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't recognise the distinction. Even when wealthy, powerful, religious groups and organisations gain political power and influence, it generally isn't about the religious element as much as the other two.

Religion has impact and influence on politics (because religion has impact and influence of people), for good and bad, but either way, that is due to specific religious aspects so just dismissing it as "political" risks ignoring those aspects when seeking to emphasise the good and reduce the bad.

 

[Balthazzar]

I think it's more complex than that, and ignoring the complexity would be a mistake.

Religion just describes various sets of formalised beliefs and practices, often (but not always) relating to gods, and wider fundamental concepts of how everything is and came to be. Politics describes the systems and processes we implement to manage and run our structured societies. Where ever religion is practiced by a large proportion of the population, especially among the ruling classes, there is inevitably going to be crossover, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't recognise the distinction. Even when wealthy, powerful, religious groups and organisations gain political power and influence, it generally isn't about the religious element as much as the other two.

Religion has impact and influence on politics (because religion has impact and influence of people), for good and bad, but either way, that is due to specific religious aspects so just dismissing it as "political" risks ignoring those aspects when seeking to emphasise the good and reduce the bad.

That is my point actually.

 

[crossfire]

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.

So you want to go back to the Divine Right of Kings? Not all religions were like that.

 

[Balthazzar]

So you want to go back to the Divine Right of Kings? Not all religions were like that.

Did you happen to read the post? I'm curious from where your inquiry derived. What is your position on government? Never mind religious. Any form of government that involves more than a typical anarchist type philosophy for its populations.

 

[crossfire]

Did you happen to read the post? I'm curious from where your inquiry derived. What is your position on government? Never mind religious. Any form of government that involves more than a typical anarchist type philosophy for its populations.

I'm all for reform in government, as well as for reform in religions. You can't expect to progress if you keep doing the same things that lead to suffering over and over again.

 

[Balthazzar]

I'm all for reform in government, as well as for reform in religions. You can't expect to progress if you keep doing the same things that lead to suffering over and over again.

Intolerance, miscommunication, forced control and value enforcement, lack of education, refusal to understand and/or accept diversity, poverty, injustice, discrimination, and illegal pursuits that compromise the safety and happiness of others, etc. are a few of our resident contributors that congest the efforts for progress. Religious practice isn't typically one of the contributors to our limitations. Forced religious values, on the other hand, can be and are often enough.

 

[HonestJoe]

That is my point actually.

Sure, but you didn't describe or explain it very well and your proposed conclusion is fundamentally flawed as a consequence. The solution to any negative influence of religion on politics isn't simply declaring that religion is politics.

 

[PureX]

Which is what religion always has been. World politics and forms of government, which at international levels secures the premise that religion is politics. In North America, we make religion controversial, but no less controversial than other forms of government. Shouldn't religion be defined as a political structure, specifically? We don't shun dialogue about other forms of government in our academic institutions. What makes religion any different?

The politics of organized religion is not a problem so long as we remember a couple simple basic axioms as a culture: We cannot and do not want to control what you believe. But we can and do want to control how you behave toward the rest of us. And if you reject our control then you reject our society. You becomes a pariah among us. This is not something the rest of us should or will tolerate. Beware.

 

[Audie]

No. Religion properly deals with the sacred, whereas government properly deals with the profane. (Separation of church and state.)

When was divine right of kings proper?

 

[Audie]

Some forms of government might define themselves as religious, but Some might define themselves as secular, but religion does not have to be political.

The organization though will
always be political.

 

[Balthazzar]

Sure, but you didn't describe or explain it very well and your proposed conclusion is fundamentally flawed as a consequence. The solution to any negative influence of religion on politics isn't simply declaring that religion is politics.

The conclusion being the premise that religion has always been a governing force among the governing powers of the earth, which belong to and are in league of this world's political powers. This is due to the fact that they are among the world's political powers presently. Communism, Marxism, Socialism, Democracy, Aristocracies, Monarchies, etc, are all part of the political paradigm associated with power and rule of law, etc. Our personal convictions in any of these is what's in the balance. Which will remain, which will pass away, and which will be on the docket for public scrutiny in the future? People decide or are forced into compliance. That's my flawed conclusion and point according to your assessment of my postings. Will we choose willful ignorance, or will we choose to be better informed in effort to help our citizens make more educated decisions in relation to our chosen representatives as a people? What do we understand about the politics involved in areas where civilians are fighting against their political (religious or otherwise) leaders?

 

[Nakosis]

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.

That's not what I'm referring to.
LLM vs generative AI: fundamentally different but compatible

 

[Nakosis]

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

The government is already using AI. I suspect it is only a matter of time before it is largely ran by AI.
Certainly it is a matter of trust.

The Biden-Harris Administration is dedicated to ensuring the U.S. leads in safe, secure, and trustworthy AI innovation to harness the opportunities of AI while mitigating its risks.
Government Use of AI.

 

[Balthazzar]

The government is already using AI. I suspect it is only a matter of time before it is largely ran by AI.
Certainly it is a matter of trust.

The Biden-Harris Administration is dedicated to ensuring the U.S. leads in safe, secure, and trustworthy AI innovation to harness the opportunities of AI while mitigating its risks.
Government Use of AI.

This doesn't concern you at all?

Question: If AI goes wrong and certain demographics in the US are somehow left behind or neglected, who will be taking responsibility for this? AI could possibly act as a justification and means by which the burden of accountability is taken out of the human political arena ... if not now, in upcoming years.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Which is what religion always has been. World politics and forms of government, which at international levels secures the premise that religion is politics. In North America, we make religion controversial, but no less controversial than other forms of government. Shouldn't religion be defined as a political structure, specifically? We don't shun dialogue about other forms of government in our academic institutions. What makes religion any different?

Religion can guide our choices and can set our boundaries, as God only wants our hearts to be loving, truthful, trustworthy and sincere.

The rule of this planet has been given over to men.

The best system would most likely combine both. It would use the guidance of God in shaping the way we interact in this world and out into the universe, how we will eventually interact with other species from other planets.

Regards Tony