Yes, Even Liberal Religious Sects Thrive on Pain and Suffering

[LAGC]

This came up in the current Greatest Thread in GD that currently has over 240 Recs and counting: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1727733

Thought it deserved its own OP, so here's what I said in response to some religious apologist who brought up the usual "fundie atheist" and "What about MLK?" canards:

If it weren't for the oppression and injustice during MLK's time, religion would have never gained as much traction as it did!

If a government really takes care of its people, people wouldn't need to turn to religion at all!

That's why religious folks (yes, even liberal religious folks) have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, because it gives them opportunity to provide services to the poor and downtrodden that any decent government should be providing instead.

That's why you see such high levels of non-believers in many European countries -- they don't NEED religion as a crutch to fall back on, because their governments HAVE THEIR BACKS with strong social safety nets. The people put up with slightly higher taxation because they like what they get in return.

Instead, all we can talk about in uber-religious America is how to cut taxes and gut government services, forcing people to rely on religion ever more!

It's like a vicious cycle, and I wonder if we'll ever break out of it...

[LiberalLoner]

1. Another reason so many eastern Europeans are non-believers is that

religion was outlawed for many decades. Rather draconian measures were applied to anyone who was found to possess a bible or other religious book. There are some good books about Stalin's era that you might be interested in.

[LAGC]

2. Yet look at other ex-Communist countries like Russia.

Religion is rebounding with a fervor there.

The point is, if you really want to minimize the influence of religion, you shouldn't just try to oppress it, as that only drives it underground and never really deals with the underlying NEED of why people resort to religion in the first place.

The Western European model is much better: provide services for the needy, and religion can no longer take the credit and make itself look nice in return.

[humblebum]

11. So you don't think that socialist and communist systems provided

services for the needy. Then what was the purpose of socialism and communism? And yet religion is again thriving in some of those places. "provide services for the needy, and religion can no longer take the credit and make itself look nice in return." - That's right out of the Soviet playbook.

[LAGC]

16. We don't need to return to communism to provide for the needy.

Plenty of DEMOCRATIC socialist countries have shown how to mix a free market economy while still providing a safety net for the people.

As usual, Europe leads the way.

[darkstar3]

6. You seem to be talking about Russia,

and last I checked it wasn't a European nation.

[laconicsax]

7. It is and it isn't.

Western Russia is European, and the vast, sparsely populated areas are in Asia.

[saras]

3. Good luck. Offer people physical security, and something like Maslow's heirarchy of needs kicks in

...and the higher levels are pretty much only addressed by religion. Our society doesn't pay much attention to those values, and in fact a lot of people actively disbelieve in their existence.

As long as people don't all behave exactly as they want to, and as others want them to, there will be religion, and probably silly beliefs about things like underwear and hair, that serve to set one off from the mass and remind one constantly of one's religious commitment.

Whether this religion needs to be infested with the sociopathic drivel common to much fundamentalism is another matter entirely. Hypothetically, I could see religion becoming more civil and philosophical, and the nutcases and haters switching allegiance to some other activity that allows for the expression of their personality flaws. I've noticed that right-wing Europeans seem to be able to form such organizations quite readily without resorting to religion.

[cleanhippie]

4. Without the pain and suffering, religion has no power.

[Adsos Letter]

5. "It's like a vicious cycle, and I wonder if we'll ever break out of it..."

Less and less likely as the funding of Faith-based programs grows; our government, using our tax dollars, to fund programs it should be providing and overseeing.

[Meshuga]

8. I am sorry but the title of the OP is beyond ridiculous

The post also sounds ridiculous and I will stick with my assessment unless the OP is in response to a study somewhere showing that the liberal religious are voting in elections to keep the status quo or that liberal religious are happy with the status quo. The connection of dots from your OP only makes your thesis true because you say so. It is only convincing to those who are willing to accept it at face value and it just reads as if you don't like the fact that religion can produce good (besides the obviously bad) because religion is supposed to be the root of all evil and do no right.

I understand that religion is a big actor in the troubles and issues we have as a nation but you post as if corporate money in elections, the funding of groups demonstrating fake citizen outrage, and a corporate media have nothing to do with the tone and influence in this country.

[LAGC]

9. You make a good point.

About the corporate money, faux outrage, corporate media influence... but how much of all that is MARRIED to the influence of the Religious Right in the political process?

Granted, liberal religious folks tend not to support those particular features DIRECTLY, but by legitimizing the role religion plays in tending to the needy, it sows the seed for all the ugly parts to manifest and grow, riding on the coat-tails of the minority good done in its name.

If the government were to fulfill its proper role in providing a social safety net, religion wouldn't be able to take credit and convince everyone that its necessary for its "benevolent charity."

Bottom line: if America had as many non-believers as do most European countries, no way would the conservatives be anywhere near as powerful as they are today. They'd be a small and rightfully ridiculed minority, and the Republicans would have no coalition at all.

[Meshuga]

10. The role of religion is undeniable

And if you take religion out of the picture I am sure the "culture wars" bullshit would no longer be an issue. However, you don't have to be a religious person or a believer to subscribe to market fundamentalism and to shoot yourself on the foot by voting against your own interests.

Money talks in the US so by owning the wealth, politics, and information a group can do a lot of damage with the assistance and support from the victims.

[ZombieHorde]

12. I agree religion thrives on suffering, but I don't think the liberal Christians here on DU want to

maintain the status quo, or at least not all of them. I have seen political posts by Christian DUers that definitely favor strengthened social programs.

[struggle4progress]

13. You think MLK covertly supported Jim Crow so he could become a hero by opposing it?

[LAGC]

15. No, I just don't think there would have been a need for an MLK figure if Jim Crow laws were never...

...on the books, or the 1800–1866 Black Codes before them.

[struggle4progress]

17. "Propositions show what they say: tautologies and contradictions show that they say nothing"

-- Wittgenstein

[LAGC]

18. You know what they say about philosophy...

"Just so much mental masturbation."

(In Germany there is a popular joke about philosophers. What does an unemployed philosopher say to a philosopher who has got work? "French fries with ketchup and a coke, please.")

[struggle4progress]

19. Have a nice day!

:hi:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

14. You look at us from the outside and know what we're thinking?

Amazing powers you have. :eyes: